Page 174 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

Communication and Group Culture 157

Cohesiveness refers to the common bonds and sentiments that hold a group Cohesiveness
together. Cohesive teams have a high degree of “stick togetherness” and behave differ- The degree of
ently from less cohesive groups. They display more characteristics of primary groups. attraction members
62
They have higher rates of interaction, express more positive feelings for each other, feel for the group;
and report more satisfaction with the group, as was demonstrated by the women soc- unity.
cer players choosing to go out to dinner together. Members are willing to cooperate
and collaborate with each other. In addition, cohesive groups exert greater control
63
over member behaviors. Highly cohesive teams are better able to cope effectively
64
with unusual problems and handle emergencies. Although in general, highly cohesive
65
groups are more productive, the nature of the task influences the cohesiveness-
66
productivity relationship. If the task is one that requires a high degree of coordination
and interdependence among members, with communication an essential factor in the
group’s task completion, then cohesiveness enhances productivity.
Cohesiveness can involve commitment to personal relationships or to the group’s
goal. Social cohesiveness from interpersonal attraction and liking produces different
67
results than cohesiveness based on commitment to the task or goal. Too much social cohe-
siveness can hurt performance. Cohesive groups are productive only when the members
68
have both high acceptance of organizational goals implicit in the group’s task and a strong
69
drive (motivation and enthusiasm) to complete the task. Groups that are highly cohesive
but socially oriented rather than task-oriented may end up accomplishing nothing. 70
Cohesiveness, commitment to the task, and productivity are fostered when mem-
bers take time to get acquainted and interested in each other as people. In addition,
71
72
cohesive groups create a dominant sensory metaphor as a group. For example, when a
group is first established, various members indicate their understanding by saying, “I
see,” “I hear you,” or “I grasp that.” Each of these metaphors for “I understand” concen-
trates on a different sense—sight, sound, or touch. In cohesive groups, members tend to
converge symbolically on one of them. If the visual metaphor is “chosen,” for example,
members will all start saying, “I see,” “I’ve got the picture,” and “I’ve spotted a flaw.”
This happens below the level of conscious awareness, like fantasy chaining, and indi-
cates that the members have influenced each other in subtle but significant ways.
Interestingly, this type of language style matching predicted cohesiveness in both
73
face-to-face and computer-mediated groups. Gonzales, Hancock, and Pennebaker
examined language generated during discussions of both face-to-face or text-based
computer-mediated communication. They found that when members’ speech patterns
matched (e.g., use of function words such as articles and conjunctions, verb tenses,
pronoun use, word counts, etc.), face-to-face and CMC groups were more cohesive. In
addition, linguistic style matching predicted task performance but only for the face-to-
face groups. This information supports the idea that groups mutually create symbolic
worlds through their communication.
Interestingly, open disagreement is more frequent in highly cohesive groups,
probably because a climate of trust gives each member the security needed to openly
74
disagree on issues, facts, and ideas. On the other hand, if high-status members indi-
cate that they perceive disagreement to be a personal affront and demand compliance,
then cohesiveness may become groupthink and be maintained at the expense of
high-quality decision making. Cohesiveness, then, is generally desirable. Table 6.1
offers suggestions to enhance cohesiveness: 75

gal37018_ch06_135_168.indd 157 3/28/18 12:36 PM