Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of team boundedness, and formal coordination on task and social cohesion and the moderating effect of organization tenure diversity.

Data was gathered from the responses of 398 team members and leaders working in 111 software development teams to a questionnaire survey. The hypotheses were all tested using structural equation modelling.

The results show team boundedness and formal coordination have positive and significant associations with task and social cohesion. Formal coordination is a stronger positive predictor for task than social cohesion. Organization tenure has a greater negative effect on social cohesion than task cohesion and moderates the relationship between formal coordination and task cohesion.

Therefore, for organizations to optimize team cohesion the impact of antecedent variables on social and task cohesion should be taken into considering in planning strategies for improvement.

This paper has an original approach by adding to the literature through an examination of the antecedent variables of task and social cohesion which are two key components of team cohesion.

Successful teams tend to be highly cohesive and team cohesion to be particularly helpful in allowing teams and their members to sustain their success even in the most challenging times. One disillusioning consequence of this reciprocity between cohesion and performance would suggest that failures made by teams and/or their members likely jeopardize their success by preventing them from capitalizing on such virtuous circles associated with team cohesion. Yet, many teams uphold their performance despite the failures they have to cope with, suggesting that the potential vicious circles can be overcome. This chapter aims at illuminating the vicious and virtuous circles associated with team cohesion that are induced by either collective failures of teams or individual failures of their members. It therefore offers a multilevel perspective not only on the emergence and diffusion of failures at the individual and team levels, but also on the critical role that team cohesion plays for a team’s (dys)functional coping across these levels. It is theorized that collective failures triggered exogenously can help build team cohesion, and that whether endogenously-triggered collective failures bring about the vicious or the virtuous circles of team cohesion depends on whether the individual failures developing into collective failures are triggered endogenously or exogenously. The implications of this conceptual work are discussed in light of the literatures on error/failure management and group cohesiveness.

The relationship between team cohesion and individual well-being is clear. Being part of a highly cohesive team is likely to contribute to the well-being of individual team members. A multidirectional relationship is likely as individual well-being is also likely to contribute to team cohesion. This chapter examines such critical relationships in the context of team performance. To do so, we draw on the dominant literatures related to these concepts, focusing on two specific types of team cohesion – social cohesion and task cohesion – and two specific types of well-being – subjective well-being (SWB) and psychological well-being (PWB). We contend that social cohesion and SWB are likely to be strongly related, while task cohesion and PWB are likely to share a strong relationship. Therefore, the chapter focuses on the evidence regarding the transactional relationship between social team cohesion and SWB, and transactional relationship between task team cohesion and PWB. Of course, we also recognize the close relationships between social and task cohesion, and between SWB and PWB. We consider the practical implications of studying the relationships between these concepts and put forth a number of recommendations for future research in this area.

Teams are best positioned for success when certain enabling conditions are in place such as the right mix of individuals. Effective team staffing considers team members’ knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) as well as the configuration of team member KSAOs and their relations, called team composition. In practice, however, how to integrate team composition considerations into team staffing to facilitate outcomes such as team cohesion can seem nebulous. The purpose of this chapter is to describe how team member KSAOs and their configurations and relations affect team cohesion, and suggest how this information can inform team staffing. We frame team cohesion as an aspect of team human capital to understand when it may be an important consideration for staffing. We describe multilevel considerations in staffing cohesive teams. We summarize theories that link team composition to team cohesion via interpersonal attraction, a shared team identity, and team task commitment. Finally, we propose a six-step approach for staffing cohesive teams, and describe a few areas for future research.

While the topic of team adaptation is gaining in prominence within the broader team effectiveness literature, there remain numerous unanswered questions about the way it affects, and is affected by, team dynamics over time. In particular, within this chapter, we seek to more fully examine the relationship between team adaptation and team cohesion to set the stage for additional investigations of team adaptation – team emergent state relationships. However, beyond merely suggesting that a linear relationship exists between team adaptation and cohesion, we envision the relationship as likely being curvilinear as well as reciprocal in nature. Additionally, we consider how temporal factors may shape this relationship by considering how the team’s performance on prior disruptions may influence the link between team cohesion and different adaptive outcomes (i.e., meritorious, maintenance, or maladaptation) as well as flowing along a feedback loop to affect team adaptation processes and team adaptability. By theorizing about these underexamined relationships, our intent is to introduce a framework that can be utilized as a foundation upon which future team adaptation research can build. Finally, we discuss how practitioners can leverage our thoughts in order to more effectively manage adaptation and cohesion within their teams.

This chapter reviews the challenges associated with measuring and studying cohesion over time and provides guidance for addressing these issues in future research.

We reviewed the team cohesion and team development literatures, including definitions and conceptualizations of cohesion as well as the seminal team development taxonomies. We then integrated these literatures to identify the challenges and potential solutions for studying team cohesion as a dynamic construct.

We identified five key challenges – theoretical and practical in nature – that researchers and organizations often face in capturing and studying team cohesion emergence: problems with self-report measures; measuring multiple dimensions of cohesion at appropriate times; failure to combine multilevel and temporal frameworks; and tracking of team and organizational events. In response, we provide actions that researchers can take in addressing these challenges: using indirect/unobtrusive measures; using social network analysis; studying “swift cohesion”; adopting an event system theory framework; and applying agent-based modeling.

This comprehensive chapter provides recommendations for studying team cohesion as a dynamic, emergent process rather than as a static state. We discuss the challenges pertaining to study design and measurement when capturing team cohesion emergence, and provide theoretical and practical ideas to guide researchers in overcoming these issues in future research.

This chapter suggests tools and data collection techniques that organizations and practitioners can use for measuring and improving team cohesion, such as using unobtrusive measures and timing measurement according to team and organizational events.

Cohesion is a key contributor to team effectiveness, leading to great interest in understanding how to diagnose, monitor, and enhance it in practice. However, there is great inconsistency in how cohesion is conceptualized and measured, making it difficult to compare findings across studies, and therefore limiting the ability to advance science and practice. To begin addressing these issues, we draw from qualitative and quantitative analyses and extract themes indicating what matters most for effective cohesion measurement. Such themes are presented around six major questions – who, what, when, where, why, and how – as they pertain to each major component of the cohesion measurement process. Emerging approaches to cohesion measurement and corresponding avenues for future research are also discussed.

In this chapter we discuss attitudinal and affective factors in the context of science teams. We review some of the key findings on conflict, trust, and cohesion in teams and discuss the differentiation between team-related and task-related definitions of each. In so doing, we discuss their relevance to team effectiveness in science teams and provide guidance on notional areas of research for understanding how these are related to effectiveness in science teams.

The purpose of this study is to determine how project governance influences project success. According to the authors, such an effect is mediated by organizational support and project team cohesion. The direct and indirect effects of organizational support and project team cohesion provided helpful information. The authors’ objective is to contribute to the project management knowledge of how project team cohesion plays a significant role in project success.

Data were collected from 350 employees working in Pakistan’s oil and gas industry. Four prime oil and gas exploration companies were selected as samples based on their contribution to the revenue. SPSS v23 and AMOS v23 were used for constructing structural equation modeling and path analysis to examine the direct and indirect effects.

The results revealed that project governance is positively related to project success. Furthermore, organizational support and project team cohesion mediated the relationship between project governance and project success.

Team cohesion has been primarily a topic of interest in sports psychology literature, education and medical sciences. There is an expressed need to investigate team cohesion issues in the broad domain of organizational development, specifically the project management literature. This study contributed by discussing team cohesion in the project context. Second, project governance was investigated using the conservation of resources theory. The lens of intellectual capital was applied to examine intangible resources of project governance like rules, regulations and directives for project success.

Advances in information technology have revolutionised the working environment. The concept of working in virtual teams was in existence in the developed part of the globe since 1960s. In developing economies, it emerged in the recent decades and gained impetus during the ongoing pandemic. This paper aims to propose examining the relationship between team cohesion and virtual team performance with the help of meta-analysis.

On published research, combined random effect meta-analysis and moderator analysis were done with the aid of Meta-essential 1.5 software. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses was designed for systematic meta-analysis.

The meta-analysis shows significant effect of cohesion on virtual team performance (r = 0.40, p < 0.000). Study outcomes indicate a positive relationship between team cohesion and virtual team performance. High heterogeneity was found and moderator analysis was performed to examine the heterogeneity.

According to the findings, the performance of teams of different sizes, tenure and occupation should not be viewed as equivalent. Results of the study can be generalised to business (employees), education (students) and online gaming teams.

Managers should be aware of cohesion concerns in work process because they may foreshadow future performance challenges or reflect other organisational issues affecting virtual team performance. The relationship between team cohesion and team performance is predicted by team occupation, size and time.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this work is a first attempt to undertake meta-analysis to study the relationship between team cohesion and virtual team performance.