Tuckman's Theory Of Group Cohesion

1617 Words 7 Pages
In today’s world, groups are an integrated part of any organization. Indeed, individuals in the workplace are often thrown together as a group to achieve certain goals. Summers et al (1988) affirmed that “in general, cohesion promotes productivity.” Yet, out of all the characteristics considered to make a group, cohesion is perhaps the most debatable as to its relationship with effectiveness, a motor for productivity and group success.
Perhaps the clearest definition interprets cohesion as “a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together” to gratify personal “affective needs” and pursue goals (Carron & al, 1998), which seems necessary to evaluate effectiveness, or “the results of performance with no consideration
…show more content…
They demonstrate that cohesion develops naturally during the “norming” and “performing” phases, respectively phases 3 and 4. The “norming” phase is considered the moment when group members are willing to trust fellow colleagues and encourage mutual support, leading to a sense of team spirit and co-operation.
Cohesion is often the result of the successful establishment of norms, which seems to bring people together and roots a feeling of belonging in the individual, which is essential for people to cooperate according to Taggar (2002). These characteristics are essential to effective group work as they naturally fall into the “performing” phase, in which cohesion brings effective decision-making in order to reach a goal.
During this, brainstorming and communication reach high levels due to data-flow and a willingness to achieve success, especially as the feeling of being included in an effective group is stimulating and motivating on both a personal and task level because of goal
…show more content…
It seems necessary for a manager to ensure that cohesion is balanced and healthy so the level of trust established between group members leads the path to open communication and willingness to evaluate group methods as to redefine norms every so often.
The lack of stimulation that can lead to “satisficing”, defined as “a decision-making approach where the first solution that is judged is “good enough” is selected and the search is then ended” (H&B, 2010, p.633). This argument is also found in Field’s (2009) research on dysfunctional teams, where she states that “conflict-avoiding teams” have more chance to be mediocre. Indeed, cohesive teams are perhaps more inclined to subject themselves to conformity because of a fear of sanction. Carron et al (1997) argued Tuckman’s view that norms help form cohesion and state that through their research on sports teams, they found proof that cohesion can develop group norms and thus cohesion would vehiculate conformity to group

Related Documents

Related Topics