Background
Cohesion in physics refers to “the force that holds the molecules of a liquid or solid together” (Goyal et al., 2021). As a result, researchers’ conceptualizations of group cohesion influence the definitions of group cohesion. However, most researchers define cohesiveness as an interpersonal attraction to a group and dedication to a task. The desire of a group to work together toward a goal or meet emotional needs is a more precise definition of cohesion—their members. Cohesion’s dynamic nature, instrumental basis, and emotional dimension are all included in these definitions. The following section studies various theorists’ and researchers’ ideas on factors, reasons, and characteristics for group cohesion.
Reasons for Group Cohesion
Bonds that bind members of a group to one another and the group as a whole do develop naturally. Group cohesion has been explained in a variety of ways by sociologists over the years. According to some, a greater sense of belonging, teamwork, and attraction on an interpersonal and group level contributes to group members’ cohesiveness.
Group Cohesion due to attraction
According to Spink and McLaren (2022), Festinger and colleagues proposed a theory of group cohesion based on the concept of attraction for the group as a whole and attraction for the group’s best leaders. According to Martin et al. (2019), interpersonal attraction is sufficient to explain group cohesion. That is, there is cohesion in a group when its members have positive feelings for one another. According to more recent theorists, group cohesion is caused by attraction to the group as a whole, similar to social identity theory. “Attraction among members of a conspicuous social group,” according to Hogg (2021), is the foundation of group cohesion. #
Hogg (2021) uses the self-categorization theory, which states that people mentally categorize themselves and others as part of a group, within a group, or as not part of the group, outside the group, to explain how group cohesion emerges from the social attraction. Particular stereotypes become more prominent in their minds due to this kind of categorization. The individual becomes more drawn to the group as a whole due to adopting the group’s ways of thinking and acting. Self-perception depersonalization refers to this process. According to Hogg’s theory, social attraction differs from the interpersonal attraction between people in a group because social attraction is a liking for impersonal characteristics, the prototype of the group (Spink & McLaren, 2022). It is also essential to remember that group cohesion has less to do with individual member attraction than group attraction.
Group Cohesion due to Commitment to Task
According to Vegt et al. (2018) and organization theorists such as Wang et al. (2020), cohesion is created when group members want to work together to complete their responsibilities and achieve their shared objectives. The members of target groups typically exhibit a high degree of interdependence and frequently feel a sense of responsibility for the group’s outcomes. The solidarity obligations created from individuals’ collective endeavors to accomplish their shared objectives are viewed as a sign of gathering union. While group attractiveness and pride were not significantly associated with performance, task commitment had a significant and positive relationship. Thus, when groups from a particular group are committed to specific tasks, they end up being connected, thus creating group cohesion.
Effects of Group Cohesion
Different theorists and researchers have found and discussed various impacts/effects of team cohesion. The following section presents the motivation, performance, and team satisfaction.
Motivation and Satisfaction
Team cohesion and motivation are essential factors in determining a company’s performance. Each member gains the ability to feel confident and advances in a team by developing adaptability, self-esteem, and personal motivation. Social loafing is not expected when there is unity within the team (Erikstad et al., 2021). Each team member is much more motivated when they work together with cohesiveness. Studies have shown that members of close-knit groups are happier and more motivated than those in disjointed groups. This is true in numerous educational, sporting, and industrial settings (Lozano et al., 2021).
Additionally, members of cohesive groups have higher levels of optimism and are less affected by social issues. People are better at coping with emotions when they are in close-knit groups. Notably, individuals experience less tension and anxiety. According to research, a close-knit group also helps people deal with stress better. One study found that when a group is under stress, group decision-making is better when the group is cohesive and committed to a task. According to Lazano et al. (2021), according to attachment theory, adolescents with behavioral issues have either superficial or infrequent interpersonal relationships. This suggests that in stressful situations, group decision-making may be improved by cohesion.
Team Performance
Cohesion can be accompanied by productivity, as performance research has demonstrated. The majority of meta-analyses have demonstrated a connection between cohesion and efficiency. This holds regardless of how cohesion is defined. According to Sajid et al. (2020), productivity correlates better with cohesiveness when defined as an attraction. Performance is related to commitment and task when defined as such, though to a lesser extent than cohesiveness as an attraction. Cohesion, also known as pride in one’s group, has received insufficient research attention. In general, there was a positive correlation between performance and cohesion as measured by each of these methods.
However, there may be a stronger correlation between cohesion and performance in some groups than in others. Smaller groups’ performance ratio and cohesiveness are higher than larger groups. Sajid et al. (2020) discovered that sports teams had the most significant relationships between cohesiveness and performance and ranked the strength of these relationships. Sports teams and military units, that is, groups that come together for a specific reason had the most vital cohesion and better group performances.
Black et al. (2018) evidence shows that cohesiveness and performance may be more closely linked in groups whose members are independent than in groups with highly interdependent roles. Nevertheless, it is essential to remember that the nature of the group being studied may alter the relationship between cohesion and effectiveness. Different results have been obtained from various studies examining this relationship. For instance, according to Black et al. (2018), a study conducted by the state department of social services on the relationship between cohesion and performance found a low positive correlation, while a separate study of groups in a military unit found a high negative correlation.
Pressure
Individuals in close-knit groups feel more pressure than those in groups apart. According to groupthink theory, pressure prevents a group from critically considering its choices. According to Kakar (2018), group members recurrently interact, providing numerous chances for influence. It also happens because the person in the group sees personal alikeness and is more likely to give in to the pressure to conform. Another reason, according to Sajid et al. (2020), is that people are more willing to give in to the pressure of conformity in order to keep or improve their relationship because they value the group.
Characteristics of a Cohesive Team
Awareness and organization
Awareness is one of the essential concepts of a person’s conscious behavior. According to Filho (2019), people’s level of awareness affects the performance of the entire team. The timely process of informing, sending to all addressees, and reaching everyone, gives a person a sense of belonging to the life of the team and its goals. According to Dierdorff et al. (2019), openness and interest in the economic interests of almost all team members encourage employees to participate jointly in the management activities of the team. Even the most experienced top manager will only be able to rely on the team’s support if he uses or minimally uses the available information channels, both oral and printed, in his work.
Discipline and Compliance
According to Bicchieri et al. (2019), discipline is the accepted order of behavior of people, which meets the moral norms and rules established in the company and allows you to adjust the processes of behavioral mood in the team. A disciplined person in a team is an incentive for social development and responsibility concerning work. High awareness and understanding of one’s place in the team contribute to the conscientious performance of functional duties. According to Li (2020), compliance with discipline is the implementation by people of established norms and rules of conduct. The level of personal relationships between the management and each member of the team directly proportionally affects the quality performance of job duties and social functions. Methods of maintaining order and discipline can be very different from each other. Social discipline types can be concepts such as morality, customs, and traditions.
References
Bicchieri, C., Dimant, E., Gächter, S., & Nosenzo, D. (2019). Social proximity and the evolution of norm compliance. Working Paper.
Black, J., Kim, K., Rhee, S., Wang, K., & Sakchutchawan, S. (2018). Self-efficacy and emotional intelligence: Influencing team cohesion to enhance team performance. Team Performance Management: An International Journal.
Dierdorff, E. C., Fisher, D. M., & Rubin, R. S. (2019). The power of percipience: Consequences of self-awareness in teams on team-level functioning and performance. Journal of Management, 45(7), 2891-2919.
Erikstad, M. K., Martin, L. J., Haugen, T., & Høigaard, R. (2021). Group cohesion, needs satisfaction, and self-regulated learning: A one-year prospective study of elite youth soccer players’ perceptions of their club team. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 39, 171-178.
Filho, E. (2019). Team dynamics theory: Nomological network among cohesion, team mental models, coordination, and collective efficacy. Sport Sciences for Health, 15(1), 1-20.
Forsyth, D. R. (2021). Recent advances in the study of group cohesion. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 25(3), 213.
Goyal, A., Palaia, I., Ioannidou, K., Ulm, F. J., Van Damme, H., Pellenq, R. J. M.,… & Del Gado, E. (2021). The physics of cement cohesion. Science Advances, 7(32), eabg5882.
Hogg, M. A. (2021). Self-uncertainty and group identification: Consequences for social identity, group behavior, intergroup relations, and society. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 64, pp. 263-316). Academic Press.
Kakar, A. K. (2018). How do team cohesion and psychological safety impact knowledge sharing in software development projects?. Knowledge and Process Management, 25(4), 258-267.
Li, F. (2020). To create dream teams, allow ‘a thousand flowers to bloom’. LSE Business Review.
Lozano-Jiménez, J. E., Huéscar, E., & Moreno-Murcia, J. A. (2021). From autonomy support and grit to satisfaction with life through self-determined motivation and group cohesion in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology, 3734.
Martin Kivlighan III, D., Adams, M. C., Obrecht, A., Kim, J. C., Ward, B., & Latino, C. A. (2019). Group therapy trainees’ social learning and interpersonal awareness: the role of cohesion in training groups. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 44(1), 62-76.
Sajid, S., Khan, M. F. T. S. U., Hassan, S., Karim, R., & Qudus, A. (2020). Impact of group cohesion and team efficacy on the performance of school volleyball players. Elementary Education Online, 19(3), 3355-3364.
Spink, K. S., & McLaren, C. D. (2022). Group prototype and cohesiveness in sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 26(1), 1.
Vegt, N., Visch, V., Vermeeren, A., & Ridder, H. (2018). A case study on gamified interventions for team cohesion in factory work. Human Technology, 14(2), 176.
Wang, W., Albert, L., & Sun, Q. (2020). Employee isolation and telecommuter organizational commitment. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 42(3), 609-625.