There is evidence in literature that supports a link between group cohesion and performance. After the well-known turnaround in the 1980s, Harley-Davidson has become a very successful company; a command-and-control culture was replaced by a new culture of assembly employees making important decisions in work teams. This study examined the determinants of group cohesion in self-managing work teams (SMWT) called “natural work groups ” (NWG) at the Harley-Davidson Motor Company’s Kansas City, MO (HDKC), assembly plant. At this plant, NWGs are empowered to successfully run the business of assembling motorcycles. A 156-item survey was completed by 233 employees (67% response rate) at the plant. A regression model, which includes the two statistically significant independent variables, (a) employee control over team staffing and (b) perceived fairness, explains nearly 42% of the variance in group cohesion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bateson, P. (1988). The biological evolution of cooperation and trust. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 14-30). New York: Basil Blackwell.
2.
Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1988). Exploring the relationship between cohesion and group resistance to disruption. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 199-213.
3.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organization members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler III, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp. 71-138). New York: John Wiley.
4.
Carron, A. V.,Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sports teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.
5.
Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32(4), 379-405.
6.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104.
7.
Cota, A. A., Evans, C. R., Dion, K. L., Kilik, L., & Longman, R. S. (1995). The structure of group cohesion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 572-580.
8.
DeMichelis, G. (1990). Computer support for cooperative work. London: Butler Fox.
9.
Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175-186.
10.
Feldman, R. A. (1968). Interrelationships among three bases of group integration. Sociometry, 31, 30-46.
11.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282.
12.
Forsythe, D. (1990). Group dynamics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
13.
Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L.-P. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents. Public Personnel Management, 27(3), 321-338.
14.
Griffith, J. (1988). Measurement of group cohesion in U.S. Army units. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 149-171.
15.
Gross, N., & Martin, W. E. (1952). On group cohesiveness. American Journal of Sociology, 57, 546-554.
16.
Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995).Ameta-analysis of cohesion and performance. Small Group Research, 26(4), 497-525.
17.
Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 199-267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
18.
Harley-Davidson. (1997). Kansas City labor agreement between Harley-Davidson Motor Company and International Association of Machinists and United Paper workers International Union. Kansas City, MO: Harley-Davidson Motor Company.
19.
Harley-Davidson. (1999). Kansas City operating system: 1-37. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City Harley-Davidson Final Assembly Plant.
20.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effect of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96-107.
21.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 531-546.
22.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
23.
McCreery, J. K., & Bloom, M. C. (2000). Teams: Design and implementation. In P. M. Swamidass (Ed.), Encyclopedia of production & manufacturing management. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
24.
Mishra, J., & Morrissey, M. A. (1990). Trust in employee/employer relationships: A survey of West Michigan managers. Public Personnel Management, 19(4), 443-463.
25.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210-227.
26.
Neter, J.,Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: Irwin.
27.
Noe, R. A. (1999). Employee training & development. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
28.
Orsburn, J. D., Moran, L., Musselwhite, E., Zenger, J. H., & Perrin, C. (1990). Self-directed work teams: The new American challenge. In J. S. Ott (Ed.), Classic readings in organizational behavior (2nd ed., pp. 272-281). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
29.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544.
30.
Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. (1984). Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 21-63.
31.
Polley, D., & VanDyne, L. (1994). The limits and liabilities of self-managing work teams. In M. M. Beyerlein & D. A. Johnson (Eds.), Theories of self-managing work teams (Vol. 1, pp. 1-38). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
32.
Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. (1997). Cohesion and work output. Small Group Research, 28(2), 294-301.
33.
Schachter, S., Ellertson, J., McBride, D., & Gregory, D. (1951). An experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations, 4, 229-238.
34.
Schriesheim, J. F. (1980). The social context of leader-subordinate relations: An investigation of the effect of group cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 183-194.
35.
Seashore, S. E. (1955). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Institute for Social Research.
36.
Steiner, I. (1972). Group processes and productivity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
37.
Stogdill, R. M. (1972). Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 376-396.
38.
Stokes, J. P. (1983a). Components of group cohesion: Inter member attraction, instrumental value, and risk taking. Small Group Behavior, 14, 163-173.
39.
Stokes, J. P. (1983b). Toward an understanding of cohesion in personal change groups. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 33, 449-467.
40.
Stokes, J. P., Fuehrer, A., & Childs, L. (1983). Group member’s self-disclosures: Relation to perceived cohesion. Small Group Behavior, 14, 63-76.
41.
Teerlink, R., & Ozley, L. (2000). More than a motorcycle: The leadership journey at Harley-Davidson. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
42.
The Working Group. (1999). Livelyhood: Carpool to nirvana [Videotape]. Oakland, CA: Author.
43.
Wech, B. A., Mossholder, K. W., Steel, R. P., & Bennett, N. (1998). Does work group cohesiveness affect individual’s performance and organizational commitment? Across-level examination. Small Group Research, 29(4), 472-494.
44.
Yukelson, D., Weinberg, R., & Jackson, A. (1984). A multidimensional group cohesion instrument for intercollegiate basketball teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 103-117.
45.
Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443-464.
