Group Cohesiveness, Productivity And Strength Of Forma Leadership

The Journal.ef Social Psycholagy, S1972;ST, 99-105.

GROUP COHESIVENESS, PRODUCTIVITY, AND STRENGTH OF FORMAL LEADERSHIP* ^
Ohio University
J O H N E . STINSON* AND E . T . HELLEBRANDT

A.

INTRODUCTION

This paper reports research designed to provide additional insight into the relationship between group cohesiveness and group productivity. While considerable research has beenconducted in the area, much of the research has not been tested in operating organizations. This lack seems to result from the assumptions held by some popular American theorists, especially those concerned with the impact of leadership style on the relationship between cohesiveness and productivity. Stogdill (7) developed an open systems theory of small-group behavior that classified cohesiveness andproductivity's two outputs of work group activities. On the basis of a thorough review of research available at that time, he concluded that, under routine operating conditions, cohesiveness and productivity are negatively correlated. Much of the popular literature on group dynamics, particularly that developed in America for practicing managers, has implicitly assumed the opposite: that there is apositive relationship between cohesiveness and productivity. Many techniques, like laboratory training, have been utilized to increase group cohesiveness on the assumption that it will improve the functioning of work groups and operating organizations (6). There is some basis for this discrepancy between research and application. Some research results indicate that there are conditions under whichcohesiveness and productivity are positively related. Schacter et al. (5) found that under strong positive induction, cohesiveness and productivity could be positively related. Gross et al. (3) found that women's housing units with strong formal leaders tended to be both niofe productive and more cohesive. Stogdill (8) found a positive correlation between cohesiveness and productivity in the
•Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on July 31, 1971. Copyright, 1972, by The Journal Press. 1 This research was supported in part by a grant from the Division of Research, College of Business Administration, Ohio University. • ~ Requests for reprints should be sent to the first-named author, address at the end of this article.

99

100

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYperformance of football teams. His analysis indicates that under conditions of high motivation, there can be a positive relationship between cohesiveness and productivity, but cautions that these high motivational conditions can seldom be maintained hour after hour, day after day. Blake and Mouton (1) propose that strong leadership can create a positive induction in group norms that willsustain both cohesiveness and productivity. They indicate that 9,9, or participative leadership, can create conditions where work group standards are high, group members are committed to group goals, work together to accomplish group goals, and receive individual satisfaction from the accomplishment of the goals. This research was designed to investigate the relationship between group cohesiveness, andgroup productivity under routine operating conditions and under strong and weak formal leadership. Two specific hypotheses were tested,: 1. Under routine operating conditions, work group cohesiveness and work group productivity are negatively correlated. 2. Strong formal leadership creates a positive induction where work group cohesiveness and work group productivity are positively correlated.These hypotheses were tested in two separate but identically designed laboratory experiments.
B. METHOD

The subjects for the research were college seniors enrolled in a business policy class at a major midwestern university. As a part of their normal classwork, the students participated in the General Business Management Simulation (4). This simulation was adopted as the experimental task. The...