Measuring Team Cohesion: Observations from the Science

被引:149
作者
Salas, Eduardo [1 ]
Grossman, Rebecca [2 ]
Hughes, Ashley M. [3 ]
Coultas, Chris W. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cent Florida, Psychol, Orlando, FL 32826 USA
[2] Hofstra Univ, Ind Org IO Psychol, Hempstead, NY 11550 USA
[3] Univ Cent Florida, Appl Expt Human Factors Psychol Program, Orlando, FL 32826 USA
[4] Leadership Worth Following LLC, Irving, TX USA
关键词
organizational behavior; design; organizational psychology; macroergonomics and the environment; group processes; social processes; team dynamics; teams and groups; team collaboration; team communication; PROJECT TEAMS; PERFORMANCE; TIME; CREATIVITY;
D O I
10.1177/0018720815578267
中图分类号
B84 [心理学]; C [社会科学总论]; Q98 [人类学];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 030303 ; 04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Objective: The aim of this study was to review literature relevant to cohesion measurement, explore developing measurement approaches, and provide theoretical and practical recommendations for optimizing cohesion measurement. Background: Cohesion is essential for team effectiveness and performance, leading researchers to focus attention on understanding how to enhance it. However, cohesion is inconsistently defined and measured, making it difficult to compare findings across studies and limiting the ability to advance science and practice. Method: We reviewed empirical research through which we uncovered specific information about cohesion's conceptualization, measurement, and relationships with performance, culminating in a set of current trends from which we provide suggestions and possible solutions to guide future efforts and help the field converge toward greater consistency. Results: Cohesion demonstrates more significant relationships with performance when conceptualized using social and task (but not other) dimensions and when analyses are performed at the team level. Cohesion is inherently temporal, yet researchers rarely measure cohesion at multiple points during the life of a team. Finally, cohesion matters in large, dynamic collectives, complicating measurement. However, innovative and unobtrusive methodologies are being used, which we highlight. Conclusion: Practitioners and researchers are encouraged to define cohesion with task and social subdimensions and to measure with behavioral and attitudinal operationalizations. Individual and team-oriented items are recommended, though team-level analyses are most effective. Innovative/unobtrusive methods should be further researched to enable cohesion measurement longitudinally and in large, dynamic collectives. Application: By applying our findings and conclusions, researchers and practitioners will be more likely to find consistent, reliable, and significant cohesion-to-performance relationships.
引用
收藏
页码:365 / 374
页数:10
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]   Cohesion over time in a peacekeeping medical task force [J].
Bartone, PT ;
Adler, AB .
MILITARY PSYCHOLOGY, 1999, 11 (01) :85-107
[2]   Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations [J].
Beal, DJ ;
Cohen, RR ;
Burke, MJ ;
McLendon, CL .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2003, 88 (06) :989-1004
[3]  
Bishop SL, 2004, AVIAT SPACE ENVIR MD, V75, pC14
[4]  
Bobko P., 2001, CORRELATION REGRESSI
[5]   Team Players and Collective Performance: How Agreeableness Affects Team Performance Over Time [J].
Bradley, Bret H. ;
Baur, John E. ;
Banford, Christopher G. ;
Postlethwaite, Bennett E. .
SMALL GROUP RESEARCH, 2013, 44 (06) :680-711
[6]  
Brzozowski MJ, 2009, GROUP 2009 PROCEEDINGS, P219
[7]   The measurement of cohesion in work teams [J].
Carless, SA ;
De Paola, C .
SMALL GROUP RESEARCH, 2000, 31 (01) :71-88
[8]   THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT TO ASSESS COHESION IN SPORT TEAMS - THE GROUP ENVIRONMENT QUESTIONNAIRE [J].
CARRON, AV ;
WIDMEYER, WN ;
BRAWLEY, LR .
JOURNAL OF SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, 1985, 7 (03) :244-266
[9]  
Cartwright D., 1960, Group dynamics: Research and theory, V2nd, P69
[10]   Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion-performance literature [J].
Casey-Campbell, Milly ;
Martens, Martin L. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, 2009, 11 (02) :223-246