GROUP COHESIVENESS

Cohesion may be defined as “the degree to which members of the group desire to remain in the group”...

Cohesion... "the resultant of all the forces acting on the member to remain in the group”...

Cohesiveness is central to the study of groups. It is considered vital in group decision-making, goal attainment, identity, and member satisfaction.

To most of us, "cohesion" implies an esprit de corps or a feeling of solidarity with other group members. Cohesion may be defined as “the degree to which members of the group desire to remain in the group”, or "the resultant of all the forces acting on the member to remain in the group”. Another perspective is to view group cohesion as "the degree to which a group exists or operates as a unified entity."

Often, cohesion is viewed from an affective perspective; as interpersonal attraction among members or to the group. However, cohesion can also be envisioned as "attraction to a collectivity" as opposed to an attraction to the individuals who make up that grouping. For example, there are examples of people who maintain membership in groups that bestow status or other impersonal rewards even when they do not particularly like other group members. Thus, cohesion moves beyond simple interpersonal liking.

Highly cohesive groups are able to enforce group norms more effectively than less cohesive groups...

...because people value their membership in cohesive groups, they are willing to adjust their behavior to group standards...

Once we've defined what group cohesion is, we ought to ask ourselves, as team members, whether cohesion is something we wish to foster. For example, we know from our discussion of social loafing, that there is less social loafing in a cohesive team. Because people value their membership in cohesive groups, they are unwilling to risk the long-term survival of the group by engaging in behavior (social loafing -- reduced output) that threatens that survival. Viewed from this perspective, we might be inclined to conclude that team cohesion is worth encouraging.

Highly cohesive groups are able to enforce group norms more effectively than less cohesive groups. In cohesive groups, internal pressures to conform are greater; because people value their membership in cohesive groups, they are willing to adjust their behavior to group standards. Cohesive groups also put more pressure on deviants to conform to group norms than less cohesive groups do.

This ability of cohesive teams to enforce group norms can have interesting and perhaps unintended consequences. Studies of group productivity show polarized outcomes for cohesive groups. In other words, productivity  tends to be either very productive or very unproductive for cohesive teams. In fact, the average productivity of cohesive groups in the studies is quite close to that of uncohesive groups. Of course, the next step has to be to determine why this might be so.

On closer examination, the research found that highly cohesive groups that valued social interaction spent their time on that, not on group tasks. In these cases, everyone got along great and everyone liked everyone else but group task productivity was terrible.

Conversely, if group norms are aligned with those of the larger organization -- generally, task achievment --   cohesive groups will outproduce less cohesive groups. (See Group GRoPE and the importance of setting goals and objectives, and assigning someone the role of keeping the group focussed on those objectives.)

Team research indicates the following positive outcomes of high group cohesion?

• Members are more satisfied.
  • Increased expression of feelings.
  • Increases listening
  • Increased interpersonal influence
  • Increased feelings of self-confidence and self-esteem
• Members remain in cohesive groups longer when a choice is available.
• Increased attendance, maintenance, and participation
• Cohesive groups appear to provide a buffer against stress and thus may positively contribute to individual mental and physical health.
  • Members of cohesive groups less often report feeling lonely or isolated.
• Identity with the group is stronger in more cohesive groups.
• Perseverance toward goals
  • Increased willingness to take responsibility for group functioning (see social loafing)

...cohesive teams generally discourage -- or at least fail to actively encourage -- interaction between the team and its outside environment...

Cohesive groups tend toward surface or superficial harmony...

In cohesive groups, deviants tend to become isolates and possibly even scapegoats...

As imposed group homogeneity emerges, the group closes itself off from cross-fertilization of ideas or from corrective input...

Interestingly, it is generally the same dynamics that produce positive outcomes in groups that also produce the negative outcomes. As we have defined cohesion, it is the desire among group members to remain in the group and to please one another. The group's enhanced ability to influence its members stems from this very desire to belong on the part of the members. Further, cohesive teams generally discourage -- or at least fail to actively encourage -- interaction between the team and its outside environment.

The implications of a desire to please other team members and a limited exposure to "outside" influences are generally negative. Cohesive groups tend toward surface or superficial harmony. Thus, in order to avoid confrontation, members will publicly agree even when they privately disagree.

Cohesive groups can be very cruel toward "deviants." Consequently, members may be disinclined to speak against what "appears" to be a team "consensus". In cohesive groups, deviants tend to become isolates and possibly even scapegoats. Given the sanctions imposed by a cohesive group, some team members may engage in self-censorship by avoiding contentious topics or carefully monitoring their verbal contributions.

Group insularity is a related effect. Surface harmony, often coupled with the notion that outsiders constitute group enemies, contributes to team insulation. In such cases, group members interact primarily with each other and avoid cross-group contacts. As imposed group homogeneity emerges, the group closes itself off from cross-fertilization of ideas or from corrective input. Since members largely interact with one another, they may begin to feel invulnerable and superior to those who are not group members.

Insulated from outside influence, members of the team can propose extreme ideas and face neither challenges nor corrections from other group members. Problems may be ignored or glossed over. Often, group failures become interpreted as enmity from the outside environment. Irving Janis coined the term "Groupthink" to decribe this process "bad decision-making."

Signs that something has gone wrong may be that cohesion breaks down and members begin to leave the group without signifying their intentions or even giving an explanation. Group productivity may drop precipitously and outside authorities may be called in to correct what has gone wrong. Meanwhile, remaining team members may refuse to even acknowledge that there are any problems.

Some negative consequences of high cohesion:

• Cohesive groups are more cruel to deviants.
  • Scapegoating, hostility and aggression are more common toward deviants in higher cohesion groups.
• Individual identity may be more stifled and restricted in cohesive groups.
  • Because members are typically closer to one another, other team members may feel that they have "an investment" other members. Members who try to change in some way -- even in a positive manner -- may find that other group members ignore, criticize or otherwise undermine their attempt to improve.
• If group goals diverge from organizational goals, not only may the group as a whole become less productive (by organizational standards), it may also reject members who are productive by organizational standards ((for example,   the "class brain" in high school may be ostracized  or "overproductive" workers may be "binged" -- see Hawthorne studies )