Cohesion, Productivity Norms and Effectiveness of Small Production Groups and Informal Subgroups

Occupation: Head of the Department of Psychology of Management, Academy of Psychology and Pedagogy
Affiliation: Southern Federal University
Address: Russia, Rostov-on-Don

E. Borokhovski

Occupation: Professor of Department of Education, Systematic Reviews Project Manager
Affiliation: Concordia University
Address: Canada, Montreal

Journal name

Psikhologicheskii zhurnal

Edition

Volume 44 Issue 2

Pages

28-39

Abstract

The relationship of cohesion and productivity norms (including their combination with each other) to perceived subject-activity effectiveness (fulfillment of the plan and current tasks, success of activity in difficult conditions) and socio-psychological effectiveness (group/subgroup satisfaction, psychological comfort in the group/subgroup) of small production groups and informal subgroups has been studied. The study was conducted among 39 production groups (N=349 employees) in different occupational areas, most of which were dominated by joint-individual forms of organization. All of the surveyed groups were found to have stable informal subgroups, the number of which varied from one to three. Cohesion within groups and subgroups was positively and significantly more strongly related to socio-psychological effectiveness than to subject-activity effectiveness. This relationship is stronger in groups compared to subgroups. The subgroups’ norm of productivity has a significant positive correlation with their fulfillment of the plan and current tasks. No significant correlation was found between the groups’ productivity norm and any indicator of their subject-activity effectiveness. The norm of productivity and cohesion creates a positive interactive effect regarding the success of the groups in difficult conditions and the subgroups’ fulfillment of plan and current tasks. The findings extend the understanding of the direct and mediated links between cohesion and productivity norms and the two types of effectiveness of small production groups and the informal subgroups formed in them.

Keywords

small group, informal subgroup, cohesion, productivity norm, production and economic effectiveness, socio-psychological effectiveness

Acknowledgment

The research was supported financially by the Russian Science Foundation, Project No. 23-28-00099 “The Role of Informal Subgroups in the Effectiveness of Production Groups and Teams”

Publication date

29.03.2023

Number of characters

30918

Cite

GOST	Sidorenkov A., Borokhovski E. Cohesion, Productivity Norms and Effectiveness of Small Production Groups and Informal Subgroups // Psikhologicheskii zhurnal – 2023. – V. 44. – Issue 2 C. 28-39 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://psy.jes.su/S020595920024905-1-1 (circulation date: 21.05.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S020595920024905-1
MLA	Sidorenkov, A., Borokhovski, E. "Cohesion, Productivity Norms and Effectiveness of Small Production Groups and Informal Subgroups." Psikhologicheskii zhurnal 44.2 (2023):28-39. DOI: 10.31857/S020595920024905-1
APA	Sidorenkov A., Borokhovski E. (2023). Cohesion, Productivity Norms and Effectiveness of Small Production Groups and Informal Subgroups. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal 44(2), pp.28-39 DOI: 10.31857/S020595920024905-1

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 1, views: 249

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Doncov A.I. Problemy gruppovoj splochennosti. Moscow: Izd-vo MGU, 1979. (In Russian)

2. Petrovskij A.V., Shpalinskij V.V. Gruppovaja splochennost' kak cennostno-orientacionnoe edinstvo. Psihologicheskaja teorija kollektiva. Ed. A.V. Petrovskogo. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1979. P. 43–64. (In Russian)

3. Sidorenkov A.V., Shipit'ko O.Ju. Vnutrigruppovye protivorechija, konflikty i jeffektivnost' grupp v organizacii: monografija. Rostov-na-Donu: Mini Tajp, 2017. (In Russian)

4. Umanskij L.I. Metody jeksperimental'nogo issledovanija social'no-psihologicheskih fenomenov. Metodologija i metody social'noj psihologii. Moscow: Nauka, 1977. P. 54–71. (In Russian)

5. Beal D.J., Cohen R.R., Burke M.J., McLendon C.L. Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003. V. 88. P. 989–1004.

6. Berkowitz L. Group standards, cohesiveness, and productivity. Human Relations. 1954. V. 7. P. 509–519.

7. Carron A.V., Colman M.M., Wheeler J., Stevens D. Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 2002. V. 24. P. 168–188.

8. Carron A.V., Prapavessis H., Estabrooks P. Team norm questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, 1999.

9. Chatman J.A., Flynn F.J. The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal. 2001. V. 44. Р. 956–974.

10. Chaudhary M., Chopra S., Kaur J. Cohesion as a cardinal antecedent in virtual team performance: A meta-analysis. Team Performance Management. 2022. V. 28. № 5/6. Р. 398–414.

11. Chiocchio F., Essiembre H. Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group Research. 2009. V. 40. № 4. Р. 382–420.

12. Courtright S.H., Thurgood G.R., Stewart G.L., Pierotti A.J. Structural interdependence in teams: An integrative framework and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2015. V. 100. № 6. Р. 1825–1846.

13. Duffy M.K., Shaw J.D. The Salieri syndrome: Consequences of envy in groups. Small group research. 2000. V. 31. № 1. Р. 3–23.

14. Durmusoglu S.S., Calantone R.J. New product development team performance: A historical meta-analytic review of its nomological network. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing. 2022.

15. Dyce J.A., Cornell J. Factorial validity of the Group Environment Questionnaire among musicians. Journal of Social Psychology. 1996. V. 136. Р. 263–264.

16. Evans C.R., Dion K.L. Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research. 1991. V. 22. Р. 175–186.

17. Festinger L. Informal social communication. Psychological Review. 1950. V. 57. P. 271–282.

18. Gammage K.L., Carron A.V., Estabrooks P.A. Team cohesion and individual productivity: The influence of the norm for productivity and the identifiability of individual effort. Small group research. 2001. V. 32. № 1. P. 3–18.

19. Gully S.M., Devine D.J., Whitney D.J. A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research. 1995. V. 26. № 4. Р. 497–525.

20. Hayes A.F. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (4th ed.). Guilford Press, 2018.

21. Hogg M.A. The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. N.Y.: New York University Press, 1992.

22. Kim M. Performance norms and performance by teams in basketball competition. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1995. V. 80. P. 770–781.

23. Lee H., Choi H.-S. Independent self-concept promotes group creativity in a collectivistic cultural context only when the group norm supports collectivism. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2022. V. 26. № 1. Р. 71–84.

24. Lott A.J., Lott B.D. Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin. 1965. V. 64. Р. 259–309.

25. Mullen B., Copper C. The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological bulletin. 1994. V. 115. № 2. P. 210–227.

26. Ogunfowora B., et al. The impact of team moral disengagement composition on team performance: The roles of team cooperation, team interpersonal deviance, and collective extraversion. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2021. V. 36. № 3. Р. 479–494.

27. Oliver L.W., et al. A quantitative integration of the military cohesion literature. Military Psychology. 1999. V. 11. Р. 57–83.

28. Onağa Z., Tepecib M. Team effectiveness in sport teams: The effects of team cohesion, intra team communication and team norms on team member satisfaction and intent to remain. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014. V. 150. Р. 420–428.

29. Patterson M.M., Carron A.V., Loughead T.M. The influence of team norms on the cohesion-self-reported performance relationship: A multi-level analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2005. V. 6. Р. 479–493.

30. Prapavessis H., Carron A.V. Cohesion and work output. Small Group Research. 1997. V. 28. № 2. Р. 294–301.

31. Saji B.S. Workforce diversity, temporal dimensions and team performance. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal. 2004. V. 11. № 4. Р. 40–59.

32. Schachter S., Ellertson N., McBride D., Gregory D. An experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations. 1951. V. 4. Р. 229–238.

33. Shanley M., Langfred C.W. The importance of organizational context: An empirical test of work group cohesiveness and effectiveness in two government bureaucracies. Public Administration Quarterly. 1998. V. 21. № 4. Р. 465–485.

34. Sidorenkov A.V., Pavlenko R.V. GROUP PROFILE computer technique: A tool for complex study of small groups. SAGE Open. 2015. V. 5. № 1. Р. 1–13.

35. Steiner I.D. Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press, 1972.

36. Stogdill R.M. Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1972. V. 8. Р. 26–43.

37. Summers I., Coffelt T., Horton R.E. Work-group cohesion. Psychological Reports. 1988. V. 63. Р. 627–636.

38. Widmeyer W.N., Brawley L.R., Carron A.V. Measurement of cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. London, Canada: Spodym Publishers, 1985.

39. Yoo S., Lee J., Lee Y. Entrepreneurial team conflict and cohesion: Meta-structural equation modeling. Entrepreneurship Research Journal. 2021.