Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Small Group Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chang, A.
Right arrow Articles by Bordia, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Multidimensional Approach to the Group Cohesion-Group Performance Relationship

Artemis Chang

Queensland University of Technology

Prashant Bordia

University of Queensland

This study (a) examined the multidimensionality of both group cohesion and group performance, (b) investigated the relationship between group-level task and social cohesion and group effectiveness, and (c) examined the longitudinal changes in cohesion and performance and the direction of effect between cohesion and performance. First, the authors hypothesized that both task and social cohesion would predict positively all dimensions of group performance. Second, that a stronger relationship would be observed between task cohesion and task effectiveness and between social cohesion and system viability. Third, that all dimensions of cohesion and performance would increase over time. Finally, that cohesion would be both the antecedent and the consequence of performance but that the performance-cohesion relationship would be stronger than the cohesion-performance relationship. Results supported the hypothesized one-to-one relationship between specific dimensions of group cohesion and group performance. Task cohesion was the sole predictor of self-rated performance at both Time 1 and Time 2, whereas social cohesion was the only predictor of system viability at Time 1 and the stronger predictor at Time 2. Social cohesion at Time 2 predicted performance on group task. However, no longitudinal changes were found in cohesion or performance. Finally, group cohesion was found to be the antecedent, but not the consequence, of group performance.

Small Group Research, Vol. 32, No. 4, 379-405 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/104649640103200401
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J Soc WorkHome page
A. Boehm and N. Yoels
Effectiveness of Welfare Organizations: The Contribution of Leadership Styles, Staff Cohesion, and Worker Empowerment
Br. J. Soc. Work, October 1, 2009; 39(7): 1360 - 1380.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Organization ManagementHome page
A. G. Tekleab, N. R. Quigley, and P. E. Tesluk
A Longitudinal Study of Team Conflict, Conflict Management, Cohesion, and Team Effectiveness
Group Organization Management, April 1, 2009; 34(2): 170 - 205.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Organization StudiesHome page
J. M. Wilson, M. Boyer O'Leary, A. Metiu, and Q. R. Jett
Perceived Proximity in Virtual Work: Explaining the Paradox of Far-but-Close
Organization Studies, July 1, 2008; 29(7): 979 - 1002.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
N. R. Quigley, A. G. Tekleab, and P. E. Tesluk
Comparing Consensus- and Aggregation-Based Methods of Measuring Team-Level Variables: The Role of Relationship Conflict and Conflict Management Processes
Organizational Research Methods, October 1, 2007; 10(4): 589 - 608.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
F. Buton, P. Fontayne, J.-P. Heuze, G. Bosselut, and N. Raimbault
The QAG-a: An Analog Version of the Questionnaire sur l'Ambiance du Groupe for Measuring the Dynamic Nature of Group Cohesion
Small Group Research, April 1, 2007; 38(2): 235 - 264.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Work and OccupationsHome page
A. B. Bakker, H. v. Emmerik, and M. C. Euwema
Crossover of Burnout and Engagement in Work Teams
Work and Occupations, November 1, 2006; 33(4): 464 - 489.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
P. Van den Bossche, W. H. Gijselaers, M. Segers, and P. A. Kirschner
Social and Cognitive Factors Driving Teamwork in Collaborative Learning Environments: Team Learning Beliefs and Behaviors
Small Group Research, October 1, 2006; 37(5): 490 - 521.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
E. J. Rozell and D. E. Gundersen
The Effects Of Leader Impression Management On Group Perceptions Of Cohesion, Consensus, And Communication
Small Group Research, April 1, 2003; 34(2): 197 - 222.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
P. A. Chansler, P. M. Swamidass, and C. Cammann
Self-Managing Work Teams: An Empirical Study of Group Cohesiveness in "Natural Work Groups" at a Harley-Davidson Motor Company Plant
Small Group Research, February 1, 2003; 34(1): 101 - 120.
[Abstract] [PDF]