Does Cohesion Positively Correlate to Performance in All Stages of a Group's Life Cycle?

DOES COHESION POSITIVELY CORRELATE TO PERFORMANCE IN ALL STAGES OF A GROUP'S LIFE CYCLE? Although organizations recognize the importance of groups and their abilities to perform tasks, the effectiveness of a group first begins with the individual and the formation of group cohesion. The interaction between group members has a bearing on the exchange of information, the formation of coalitions, and the response to group leaders. Bales (1953) established an interaction process analysis method that measured behavior among group members. Schutz (1967) emphasized that interactive expression is a precondition for effective task performance. This correlation is unidirectional, as the research does not support that effective task performance is a precondition of satisfactory expressive interaction within groups. This research provides evidence that group cohesion impacts the task performance of the group, which validates the need to understand the concept of group cohesion, but it does not specify whether the correlation occurs in all stages of a group's life cycle.Linking group members together to form a unique bond with each other, and the group as a whole may or may not develop simultaneously. In fact, Tuckman (1965) argued that groups needed to experience a series of stages before the group reached a level of maturity than enabled group performance to exist. Tuckman's (1965) research labeled the stages of a group's life cycle as: a) forming, b) storming, c) norming, and d) performing. His view, not supported by all theorists, contradicted the claim in which effective task performance might be attained at other points within a group's life cycle and not just in the performing stage (Gersick, 1988; Ginnett, 1990; McGrath, 1991). Regardless of these points of view, the researchers did not dismiss the fact that a group life cycle existed, just the point in time when group effectiveness was realized.Accepting the concept that group cohesion impacts task performance, and that groups have a life cycle, the literature calls out an absence of research directed to the dynamics of cohesion and performance relative to the different stages of a group's life cycle (Greer, 2012). GROUP COHESIONThe bonds that link group members to one another and to their group as a whole are not believed to develop spontaneously. Over the years, social scientists have explained the phenomenon of group cohesiveness in different ways. From this viewpoint, understanding how the individual behaves within the group is important to determining group cohesion (Drescher, Burlingame, & Fuhriman, 1985). Research on group cohesion began in the early 1950's with the intent to determine group cohesion's effect on group performance (Seashore, 1954; Schacter, Ellertson & McBride, 1951; Berkowitz, 1954). From an experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity, Schacter, Ellertson, and McBride (1951) defined group cohesion in two parts. The first impacted the degree of cohesiveness and referred to the characteristics of groups such as morale, efficiency, or esprit. Their second definition dealt with attractiveness of group for its members and impacted the direction of group induction. Developing over time, researchers explained the group cohesion phenomenon using a variety of definitions, which expanded the original research findings. Stokes (1983) identified four main components in his work to include: a) social relations, b) task relations, c) perceived unity, and d) emotions.The vast amount of research offered on this topic validated the importance and relevance of group cohesion to group performance. For the purposes of this research, the components of the variable group cohesion consist of attraction, individual need, and commitment and belonging (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1963; Lott & Lott, 1965; Floffman & Maier; 1961, Schutz, 1967; Dobbins & Zaccaro, 1986; Dion & Evans, 1992). AttractionIndividuals attracted to other individuals within a group create a form of group cohesiveness (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1963; Dobbins & Zaccaro, 1986). …