Cohesion and Performance

Chiocchio, François; Essiembre, Hélène

doi:10.1177/1046496409335103

Cited by 192 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 105 publications

(125 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior studies on group cohesiveness generally have been conducted at the group level and have demonstrated that a cohesive group will experience less group conflict and achieve better group performance compared to a less cohesive group (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003;Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009). However, scholars have found that group cohesiveness may also produce negative group consequences.…”

Section: The Cross-level Moderating Role Of Group Cohesivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Help yourself by helping others: The joint impact of group member organizational citizenship behaviors and group cohesiveness on group member objective task performance change

Liu

Chen

Holley

2017

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines how a group member's individual‐targeted citizenship behavior (OCBI) and organization‐targeted citizenship behavior (OCBO) interact with a salient group‐level contextual variable, group cohesiveness, to foster positive change for that group member, starting with job self‐efficacy change, and followed by objective task performance change. Over a span of 6 months, we engaged in multilevel, multisource, multistage data collection and surveyed 587 members in 83 work groups. Our results indicate that a group member's OCBI, in comparison with OCBO, is more positively related to his or her job self‐efficacy change. Group cohesiveness was found to attenuate the relationship between a group member's OCBI and job self‐efficacy change, and conversely, to accentuate the relationship between a group member's OCBO and job self‐efficacy change. Furthermore, a group member's job self‐efficacy change mediated the interactive effects of the group member's OCBI and group cohesiveness (as well as the group member's OCBO and group cohesiveness) on his or her objective task performance change.

show abstract

Section: The Cross-level Moderating Role Of Group Cohesivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Help yourself by helping others: The joint impact of group member organizational citizenship behaviors and group cohesiveness on group member objective task performance change

Liu

Chen

Holley

2017

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in SGR in the 1970s, an intense academic debate on marathon groups, sensitivity training, and encounter groups took place (e.g., Smith, 1979;Stava & Bednar, 1979;Uhlemann & Weigel, 1977) that faded in the following decades. Similarly, the 2000s saw an unprecedented focus in SGR on the aspects cohesion, efficacy, and computers (e.g., Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009;Edmonds, Tenenbaum, Kamata, & Johnson, 2009;Johnson et al, 2009). Whereas the latter (computers) are mainly discussed in the context of virtual teams and thus reflect a general trend toward an increasing digitization of the (business) world, the former can be seen as the harbingers of an upcoming trend in teamwork research to focus on emergent states to explain the mechanisms underlying well-researched input-team performance relationships (Coultas et al, 2014).…”

Section: Trends In Sgrmentioning

confidence: 99%

The History of Teamwork’s Societal Diffusion

Weiß

Hoegl

2015

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the literature, the notion of the ever-growing prevalence of teamwork is dominating. First, has there indeed been a steadily increasing trajectory of the societal diffusion of and academic research on teamwork? If so, what have the main drivers of this trajectory been? In this review, we apply a multi-method approach to examine these questions. Specifically, we combine the established bibliometric method of scholarly article counts with the innovative approach of culturomics that allows the content analysis of a literature corpus spanning millions of books, both popular and scholarly. The results show that although academic research on teamwork has grown constantly and has shown a sharp increase over the past 40 years, the societal diffusion of teamwork, as indicated through the culturomics approach, actually followed a volatile trend in the past century. Certain large-scale events and developments, such as war, may serve as an explanation for these changing trends.

show abstract

“…For example, we did not study project teams, and yet some research has found that project as opposed to production teams show different relationships between processes and outputs (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009). …”

Section: Limitations and Future Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What distinguish teams from social aggregates? A tool to assess the group development

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Título: ¿Qué distingue a los equipos de los agregados sociales? Un instrumento para evaluar el desarrollo del grupo. Resumen: Esta investigación utiliza el constructo de desarrollo del grupo (GD) para distinguir grupos de trabajo y equipos altamente desarrollados de los meros agregados sociales. Los objetivos fueron desarrollar una escala capaz de medir este proceso emergente básico y estudiar la fiabilidad y validez de constructo de la escala (de contenido, factorial, convergente y orientada al criterio). Los datos relativos al GD y otros procesos relacionados (entitatividad e identificación del grupo) y resultados del equipo (desempeño y efectividad del grupo) se obtuvieron de cuatro estudios sucesivos (4099 participantes pertenecientes a 559 grupos de trabajo de 12 organizaciones). Todos los estudios se llevaron a cabo utilizando un diseño transversal y correlacional. Los resultados revelaron una solución unidimensional de la escala propuesta, que demostró validez y fiabilidad adecuadas. La escala no sólo es práctica (rápida y fácil de aplicar), sino que también es útil para los gestores y líderes de grupos ya que les proporciona una herramienta para determinar el grado en que sus grupos funcionan en realidad como equipos altamente desarrollados. Palabras clave: grupos de trabajo; equipos; desarrollo del grupo; cuestionario de autoinforme; validez de constructo.Abstract: This research uses the construct of group development (GD) to distinguish highly developed workgroups and teams from mere social aggregates. The aims were to develop a scale capable of measuring this basic emergent process and to study the scale's reliability and construct validity (content, factorial, convergent and criteria). Data concerning the GD, other related processes (entitativity and group identification) and team outputs (group performance and team effectiveness) were gathered from four successive studies (4099 participants belonging to 521 workgroups in 13 organizations). All the studies were carried out using a cross-sectional and correlational design. The results revealed an one-dimensional solution for the proposed measurement scale, which showed adequate reliability and validity. The scale is not only practical (quick and easy to apply) but also useful for group managers and leaders, since it provides them with a tool for determining the extent to which their groups are actually functioning as highly developed groups.

show abstract

Cohesion and Performance

Cited by 192 publications

References 105 publications

Help yourself by helping others: The joint impact of group member organizational citizenship behaviors and group cohesiveness on group member objective task performance change

Help yourself by helping others: The joint impact of group member organizational citizenship behaviors and group cohesiveness on group member objective task performance change

The History of Teamwork’s Societal Diffusion

What distinguish teams from social aggregates? A tool to assess the group development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About