Does high cohesiveness in a group lead to higher productivity?

Vecchio (2006: 212) defines a group as “two or more people who interact with each other, share certain common beliefs, and view themselves as being members of a group”. The term cohesiveness is the need and desire of individuals to “remain in the group” (p. 225). Oxform Brookes University (2006) defines cohesiveness as a measure of the “attraction of the group to its members” and “the resistance to leaving it” (ibid). There are two types of groups, formal and informal. Formal groups are those commonly found in organisations or professional sports teams consisting of an official leader. Informal groups are those that form out of friendship or chance meetings and seldom have leaders (Fraizer 2006).

So does high cohesiveness in a group lead to higher group Productivity? There are always two views to any story as the old saying goes, and this one is the same. The success of any group is very dependant on many internal and external factors. Factors such as; “group size” (Vecchio 2006: 218), group dynamics, “personality traits” (p. 28) and group goals to name a few. The group objective or goal is probably the most important factor for any group whether it is formal or informal. Like minded people As illustrated by Blanchard and Bowles (1998) in their book Gung Ho, sharing a common belief between two or more individuals, often forms a close bond as that of Andy Longclaw and Peggy Sinclair’s.

These bonds take time to form and strengthen as each member learns about the “personality traits” (Vecchio 2006: 28) of each member. Once formed, it becomes easier to relate to one another and it also becomes hard for an outsider to break this bond. Sporting teams such as rugby teams are a very good example of this bond. As Bayfield (2005) states, “rugby is much about brotherhood as it is about sport”. This is the mentality of these teams and most evident in that of the New Zealand “All Blacks” (NZRU 2003). The need for a common bond and a need for identity has resulted and expressed in the style of their game and the performance of a war dance at the beginning of all their games. The most famous of these war dances (haka) can be seen at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=503648905125177776 or the newest addition to their identity at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1263399859472240677. What makes a successful group? The All Blacks are “currently the number one ranked team in the world” (Wikipedia 2006) and the most successful rugby team in the world. They are successful due to diligence to their cause aided by team spirit and cohesiveness. They are successful because of sustaining factors such as “similar attitudes and goals” (Vecchio 2006: 225). The threat of losing to an external team increases their need to “stick together” and their desire to win.

This attitude is not restricted to the rugby field. According to various senior managers that one has conversed with over the years, the majority agree that successful organisations have successful senior management teams. According to this group, these senior management groups are productive due to the fact that they usually consist of between three and seven members - enough for everyone to have a say, hence the risk of anyone feeling lost in the system (Vecchio 2006) is greatly reduced. In addition, as pointed out by Robbins (2005: 254) “having an odd number of members eliminates the possibility of ties when votes are taken, hence a decision will always be made. Furthermore, Herek (2006) points out that there are two types of cohesion; social cohesion and task cohesion - both of which are core to success.

Again, based on these aforementioned conversations, it is evident that all members of these groups have common social traits and common goals which drive them to be more productive. But most importantly; there is one final ingredient in this mix which bring together the elements of success; a great leader was present in all the examples described in our conversations. According to Silbiger (2005), a leader is someone who has “self-confidence to make decisions, motivate others, assumes responsibility” (p. 387) and provides direction. How did the phrase "a camel is a horse designed by a committee" becomes so popular and ingrained in our culture? There are many factors that have a negative effect on any group or team. Lack of leadership and direction is usually the main reason contributing to failure. Without this leadership and direction, conflict may occur between group members which is outside of the “norm” (Vecchio 2006: 224) and seen by the rest of the group as “inappropriate conduct”. Where there is no elected or official leader, there may be a power struggle for authority and “status” (p. 223). During this process, smaller groups may form within the larger groups resulting in group dissatisfaction. However, a larger group consisting of a leader; may still have issues due to members getting lost in the system, where they may end up feeling as if they don’t have a say in the decision making process (Vecchio 2006). Furthermore, the formation of “informal groups” (p. 213) “often form as resistance to organisational goals”. Some groups may also fail due to “group think” whereby all members agree with an idea leaving no one to question an alternative approach or possible negative outcome. Without “critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views” (Robins 2005: 257), a group may become less productive due to unforeseen factors not debated. As these negative activities continue within these groups whether large, small, formal or informal productivity will suffer as a result.

Conclusion

Productivity of any organisation is always dependant on the performance of its individuals and groups. Where leadership, direction and communication are evident, high productivity is most likely. However, where lack of clear leadership, direction and communication exists, the need to compensate will result in too many individuals stepping forward to take ownership or control. This usually results in conflict for power and status, ultimately resulting in too many people giving orders and not enough people doing the work, or as the old saying goes ‘too many Chiefs and not enough Indians’.

References

Bayfield, M. (2005) Martin Bayfield column [Online] Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/international/4668873.stm (Accessed 29 June 2006)

Blanchard, K., Bowles, S. (1998) Gung Ho! How to motivate people in any organization. London: Harper Collins Frazier, A. (2006) Managing People Seminar 3 [Online] Available from: Embanet MBASHR-060608-01 Sem 3 (Accessed: 21 June 2006)

Google (2006) Google Video. France vs. All Blacks – The haka 2004 [Online] Available from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=503648905125177776 (Accessed 29 June 2006)

Google (2006) Google Video. All Blacks new haka [Online] Available from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1263399859472240677 (Accessed 29 June 2006)

Herek, H,M. (2006) Unit Cohesion and the Military Mission [Online] Available from: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/military_cohesion.html (Accessed 29June 2006)

NZRU. (2003) The official website of the New Zealand All Blacks rugby team and rugby union [Online] Available from: http://www.allblacks.com (Accessed 29 July 2006)

Oxform Brookes University. (2006) Characteristics of a group [Online] Available from: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/2_learntch/small-group/sgt1.7.htm... (Accessed 29 June 2006)

Robbins, S.P. (2005) Organisational Behavior. 11th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc Vecchio, R. P. (2006) Organizational Behavior: Core Concepts. 6th de. Mason, OH: Thomas South-Western Wikipedia (2006) All Blacks [Online] Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Blacks (Accessed 29 June 2006)