5 Cohesion and Development A group is not just a set of individuals, but a cohesive whole that joins the members in interlocking interdependencies. This solidarity or unity is called group cohesion and is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for a group to exist. A group may begin as a collection of strangers, but, as uncertainty gives way to increasing unity, the members become bound to their group and its goals. As cohesion and commitment ebb and flow with time, the group’s influence over its members rises and falls. What is group cohesion, and what are its sources? How does cohesion develop over time? What are the positive and negative consequences of cohesion? Do initiations increase cohesion? Cohesion & Development The Nature of Cohesion Sources Social Developing Cohesion Theories of development Satisfaction and adjustment Five Stages Dynamics and influence Task Collective Emotional Structural Consequences of Cohesion Cycles of development Productivity Explaining Initiations Cohesion and initiations Hazing The Nature of Cohesion “The total field of forces which act on members to remain in the group” Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950, p. 164 Sources Social Task Collective Emotional Structural Origin •From the Latin “haesus,” which means “cling to” (e.g., adhesive, inherit) Definition Sources • The solidarity, unity, integrity of a group • A group’s cohesiveness derives on a number of sources, such as attraction, commitment to a task, and so on. • Equifinality: Potential to reach an end state through many paths • Multifinality: Reaching different endings from the same starting conditions Sources of Cohesion Multiple Components (e.g., attraction, shared task focus, identity… Multicomponentmultilevel model Multiple Levels (e.g., member to member, member to group…) Social Cohesion Components Sources of Cohesion Levels Social Cohesion Task Cohesion Collective Cohesion Emotional Cohesion Structural Cohesion Attraction between members Attraction to the group-asa-whole Task Cohesion Sources of Cohesion Processes Components Social Cohesion Task Cohesion Collective Cohesion Emotional Cohesion Structural Cohesion Shared commitment to group goals Collective efficacy Group potency Collective Cohesion Sources of Cohesion Components Social Cohesion Group Unity: WE Task Cohesion Belonging (part of the group): IN Collective Cohesion Emotional Cohesion Structural Cohesion Self-group bonding Identity fusion Emotional Cohesion Sources of Cohesion Components Social Cohesion Morale Task Cohesion Esprit de corps Collective Cohesion Emotional Cohesion Structural Cohesion Relational cohesion theory: cohesion increases as the group becomes a source of positive emotions (e.g., behavioral syncrony) Structural Cohesion Components Sources of Cohesion Processes Social Cohesion Task Cohesion Collective Cohesion Emotional Cohesion Structural Cohesion Open groups tend to be less cohesive than closed ones (e.g., e-groups) Bulldogs Red Devils Sherif & Sherif, 1953, 1956 Sources The Nature of Cohesion Sources Social Task Collective Emotional Structural Developing Cohesion Consequences of Cohesion Explaining Initiations Theories of development Five Stages Basic Idea Stage Models Cycle Models •Groups Cycles ofover develop: development time they exhibit predictable patterns of change • Some models assume groups move through a series of separable stages as they develop • Some models assume groups repeatedly cycle through periods or phases during their lifetimes Five Stage Model of Group Development Performance and cohesion Performance Stabilizing structure and stability Formation creating the group and setting goals dealing with source Conflict of tension Time monitoring, leading, feedback Tuckman’s Five Stage Model Stage Orientation: Forming Major Processes Characteristics Members become familiar with each other Communications are tentative, polite; and group; dependency and inclusion issues; concern for ambiguity, group’s goals; acceptance of leader and group consensus leader is active; members are compliant Conflict: Storming Disagreement over procedures; dissatisfaction and tension; antagonism toward leader Criticism of ideas; poor attendance; hostility; coalition formation Structure: Norming Growth of cohesiveness and unity; roles, standards, and relationships; increased trust, communication Agreement on procedures; reduction in role ambiguity; increased “we-feeling” Goal achievement; performance and production Decision making; problem solving; mutual cooperation Termination of roles; completion of tasks; reduction of dependency Disintegration and withdrawal; increased independence and emotionality; regret Work: Performing Dissolution: Adjourning Cyclical vs. Stage Models Tuckman: A successive stage model Task Orientation Bale’s Equilibrium model: a cyclical model Relationship Orientation Punctuated equilibrium model Cultural differences in development and time perceptions: polychronic vs. monochronic The Nature of Cohesion Developing Cohesion Consequences of Cohesion Explaining Initiations Satisfaction and adjustment Dynamics and Most people, if asked to choose between influence two groups—one that is cohesive and another thatProductivity is not—would likely pick the cohesive group. But cohesiveness has its drawbacks. A cohesive group is an intense group, and this intensity affects the members, the group’s dynamics, and the group’s performance in both positive and negative ways. Cohesion leads to a range of consequences—not all of them desirable. Satisfaction and adjustment Explaining Initiations Donald Roy’s (1959) “banana time” case study documented the benefits of membership in a cohesive workgroup. Roy worked for two months in 12hour shifts lasting from 8AM to 8:30PM with three other men in an isolated room in a factory. The work was tedious, menial, repetitive, and tiring, but the cohesive workgroup group filled its workday with jokes, teasing, kidding around, and horseplay that gave structure and meaning to their day. To break up the day into smaller segments, the men stopped from time to time for various refreshments and breaks. There was, of course, lunchtime, but the men added many others, such as coffee time, peach time, fish time, and banana time. These rituals and social activities, collectively called “banana time” by Roy, turned a bad job into a good one. Satisfaction and adjustment Positive Consequences Enhanced member satisfaction Reduced tension, stress Higher group engagement Reduced turnover Longer duration of membership Dynamics and influence Problematic Consequences Intensification of emotional and social processes Increased influence, pressure Hostility Groupthink What about productivity? Do Cohesive Groups Outperform Less Cohesive Groups? Sources: Mullen & Copper, 1994; Beal et al., 2003; Gully et al., 1995 .51 Social cohesion .17 .,17 Unity (Group Pride) Task Cohesion (teamwork) .24 .25 .25 Cohesion Performance Task Interdependence Norms are also critically important Groups with norms that stress productivity Productivity Studies suggest that the productivity of cohesive groups depends on the norms of that group: if the group norms do not support hard work, then cohesive groups will be strikingly unproductive! Groups with norms that stress low productivity Low Cohesion High Cohesion Application: Explaining Initiations Cohesion and initiations Hazing Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance predicts that people who must invest in their group will become committed to it. Festinger, Schachter’s and Back’s classic study of the “Seekers” supported this predictions Aronson & Mills tested this hypothesis in an experimental study of initiation and also found evidence of increased commitment Application: Explaining Initiations Cohesion and initiations Hazing 200 195 190 185 180 175 170 165 160 155 150 Control Mild Severe Aronson & Mills tested this hypothesis in an experimental study of initiation and also found evidence of increased commitment Hazing What sustains hazing? Bonding: Increases dependency on the group Dominance: Establishes hierarchy, status Commitment: Increases psychological costs and commitment Tradition: Defended as a sacred tradition Dangers of hazing Ineffective: Not as effective a means of increasing commitment as other grouplevel activities Dangerous: Harmful and fatal in some cases Illegal: Banded in most jurisdictions Cohesion & Development The Nature of Cohesion Sources Social Developing Cohesion Theories of development Satisfaction and adjustment Five Stages Dynamics and influence Task Collective Emotional Structural Consequences of Cohesion Cycles of development Productivity Explaining Initiations Cohesion and initiations Hazing Performing Group Development Norming Tuckman’s 5 stage model of group developlment Task Storming Forming Storming Adjourning Forming Norming Performing Adjourning Source: Forsyth, 2010 For images of the 1980 US Hockey team s see • Sports_Illustrated_Miracle_on_Ice_cover.jpg • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/the_golden_goal/ • http://www.usahockey.com/ushhof/default.aspx?NAV=AF_01&id=289718