Causal modeling procedures are utilized to investigate the relationship between cohesion and productivity in 54 recently formed work groups within the framework of a nine-month longitudinal field study. The results provide evidence of the central role of group acceptance of organizational goals in determining both productivity and cohesion. Goal acceptance affected group productivity positively via two routes: (1) directly and (2) indirectly via its direct effects on group drive. The results also suggest that the relationship between cohesion and productivity is reciprocal but that causation in either direction occurs only in groups exhibiting high goal acceptance and high drive levels. Implications of these findings for the management of work groups are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bateman, T.E., & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee "citizenship" Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.
2.
Bateman, T.S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of antecedents of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 95-112.
3.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory. New York: Harper & Row.
4.
Collins, B.E., & Raven, B.H. (1969). Group structure: Attraction, coalitions, communication, and power. In Lindzey & Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 4). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Erez, M., Earley, P.C., & Hulin, C.L. (1985). The impact of participation on goal acceptance: A two-step model. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 50-66.
7.
French, J.R.P. (1944). Organized and unorganized groups under fear and frustration. In French et al. (Eds.), Studies in child welfare. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
8.
Gist, M.E., Locke, E.A., & Taylor, M.S. (1987). Organizational behavior: Group structure, process, and effectiveness. Journal of Management, 13, 237-257.
9.
Greene, C.N., & Schriesheim, C.M. (1980). Leader-group interactions: A longitudinal field of study. Journal of Applied Psychology , 65, 50-59.
10.
Griffin, R.W., & Moorhead, G. (1986). Organizationalbehavior. Dallas : Houghton-Mifflin.
11.
Hackman, J.R., & Morris, C.G. (1983). Improving group performance effectiveness. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Psychological foundations of organizational behavior (2nd ed.; pp. 360-372). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
12.
Harmon, H.H. (1967). Modern factor analysis (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Herold, D.M. (1979). The effectiveness of work groups. In S. Kerr (Ed.), Organizational behavior. Columbus, OH: Grid.
14.
Kenny, D.A. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spuriousness . Psychological Bulletin, 92, 887-903.
15.
Kernaghan, J.A., & Cooke, R.A. (1987). The relationship of group process factors to quality and acceptance of group output. International Journal of Small Group Research (March), 39-60.
16.
Kim, J.S. (1984). Effect of behavior plus outcome goal setting and feedback on employee satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 139-149.
17.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1984). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works . Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall .
18.
Lott, A.J., & Lott, B E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables . Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309.
19.
Raven, B.H., & Rietsema, J. (1957). The effects of varied clarity of group goal and group path upon the individual and his relation to his group. Human Relations, 10, 29-45.
20.
Rogosa, D. (1980). A critique of cross-lagged correlations. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 245-258.
21.
Schermerhorn, J.R., Jr., Hunt, J.G., & Osborn , R.N. (1988). Managing organizational behavior. New York: John Wiley.
22.
Scott. W. E. (1967). The development of the semantic differential scales as measures of morale. Personnel Psychology, 20, 179-188.
23.
Scott, W.E., & Rowland, K.M. (1970). The generality and significance of semantic differential scales as measures of "morale." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 576-591.
24.
Seashore, S.E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in an industrial workgroup . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center.
25.
Seashore, S.E., & Bowers, D.G. (1963). Changing the structure and functioning of an organization: Report of a field experiment. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center .
26.
Shaw, M.B. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York : McGraw-Hill.
27.
Stedy, A.C., & Kay, E. (1966). The effects of goal difficulty on performance: A field experiment. Behavioral Science, 11, 459-470.
28.
Stogdill, R.M. (1959). Individual behavior and group achievement. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
Stogdill, R.M. (1965). Work group descriptions manual. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
30.
Stogdill, R.M. (1972). Group productivity, drive and cohesiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 26-43.
31.
Wheeless, L., Wheeless, V., & Dickson-Markman, F. (1982). The relations among social and task perceptions in small groups. Small Group Behavior , 13, 373-384.
32.
Zander, A. (1982). Making groups effective. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
