Small Group Research

8 downloads 1335 Views 655KB Size Report
Nov 19, 2012 - The “Black Sox Scandal” occurred during the 1919 World Series. ... This working definition of cohesion was the basis for most discussions.
Small http://sgr.sagepub.com/ Group Research

Cohesion and Sports Teams: A Review Anthony T. Pescosolido and Richard Saavedra Small Group Research 2012 43: 744 DOI: 10.1177/1046496412465020 The online version of this article can be found at: http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/43/6/744

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Small Group Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://sgr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://sgr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/43/6/744.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 19, 2012 What is This?

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013

465020 all Group ResearchPescosolido and Saavedra © The Author(s) 2012

SGR43610.1177/1046496412465020Sm

Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Cohesion and Sports Teams: A Review

Small Group Research 43(6) 744­–758 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1046496412465020 http://sgr.sagepub.com

Anthony T. Pescosolido1 and Richard Saavedra2

Abstract Cohesion has historically been considered one of the most important variables in the study of small group dynamics and has historically been one of the most frequently studied of group-level constructs. In this commentary we consider why and how group cohesion influences behavior in sports teams and why and how it operates differently in different types of teams. Specifically, we note that sports teams operate in extremely well-defined contexts, with much greater clarity in terms of goals, member roles, working procedures, available resources, and so forth, than most other types of teams. Consequently we suggest that while cohesion may be a valid construct for studying and analyzing sports teams, the relative lack of clear unambiguous context for most other types of teams reduces the explanatory power of cohesion for teams in other contexts. Keywords cohesion, sports teams, work groups, structure Build for your team a feeling of oneness, of dependence on one another and of strength to be derived by unity. Vince Lombardi

Team leaders and managers frequently turn to sports teams as models for team performance and to sports coaches as inspiration for their own team 1

University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

2

Corresponding Author: Anthony T. Pescosolido, University of New Hampshire, McConell Hall—UNH, Durham, NH 03824, USA Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013

Pescosolido and Saavedra

745

leadership. While others have cautioned against the wholehearted importation of the metaphor of sports teams as models for other types of teams (e.g., Katz, 2001; Keidel, 1984), as academic researchers we continue to implicitly use sports teams as models for other types of teams through our continued investigation of concepts (such as team cohesion) that are well substantiated in the field of sports studies but have received mixed support in other contexts (Mudrack, 1998). In this article, we argue that while cohesion is a valuable and needed construct in the closely structured and well-defined arena of sports teams, teams in other settings have very different needs due to the parameters under which they operate. We begin with a general review of the literature on group cohesion. We then focus specifically on the literature on cohesion in sports teams and examine some of the many differences between sports teams and other types of teams. Finally, we close by making a recommendation about the continuing role and relevance of the study of group cohesion for group and organization studies. But first we present three different scenarios depicting the good, the bad, and the ugly of group cohesion within the context of sports teams. “5 seconds left in the game. Do you believe in miracles? YES!” Sportcaster Al Michaels delivered that famous call ending the medalround men’s ice hockey game during the 1980 Winter Olympics at Lake Placid, New York. In this “Miracle on Ice,” the U.S. team, composed of amateur and collegiate players, defeated the Soviet team who had won almost every world championship and Olympic tournament since 1954. In Olympic group play, the Americans surprised many observers with their physical, cohesive play. To get there, U.S. coach Herb Brooks employed a tough, confrontational leadership style. He had his team skate hard practices and he berated his players for errors and for their “weaknesses.” The goal was to build stamina and toughness so the team could keep up with the Soviets through all three periods. Throughout, the coach extolled the Soviet threat in competition. (“The 20th Century Awards,” 1999) Our question: Did group cohesion play a major role in the success of the U.S. team? The “Black Sox Scandal” occurred during the 1919 World Series. Eight members of the Chicago White Sox intentionally lost games, allowing the Cincinnati Reds to win the series. For their role, these players were banned for life from Major League Baseball. The eight

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013

746

Small Group Research 43(6)

players were motivated by their dislike for the club’s owner whose reputation was one of a tightwad, routinely underpaying his players for years. In addition, the eight players resented the straight-laced players on the team, some of which were college graduates. The factions did not speak to one another on or off the field. However, all the players resented the club owner. (Asinof, 1988) Our question: Was group cohesion an important factor in creating an impetus for players to “fix” the games? Finally, we consider the 2012 Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse case at Penn State University, one of the biggest scandals in the history of college sports. Football coach Joe Paterno and other top Penn State administrators and officials buried child sexual abuse allegations against Assistant Coach Jerry Sandusky for more than a decade to avoid bad publicity, according to a scathing report by former FBI chief and federal judge Louis Freeh. The report chronicled a culture of silence that extended from the president down to the janitors in the football building. Football staff members and coaches regularly saw Sandusky showering with boys but never told their superiors about it (Associated Press, July 12, 2012). In 2000, a janitor saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy in the team showers. He and his fellow janitors were afraid of going to the police because they thought they would lose their jobs. Reporting the assault “would have been like going against the president of the United States in my eyes,” a janitor told Freeh’s investigators. “I know Paterno has so much power, if he wanted to get rid of someone, I would have been gone.” He went on to assert that “football runs this university.” Freeh wrote, “A culture of reverence for the football program is ingrained at all levels of the campus community.” Almost every illegal and immoral decision made was done with the intent of protecting the reputations of the football program and Paterno. The investigation concluded that “(t) he most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized.” (Freeh Sporkin, & Sullivan, 2012, pp. 65-66) Our question: To what extent did the cohesiveness of the football program at Penn State contribute to an agreement to conceal a child predator? These three distinct and compelling cases outline, if briefly, the role of cohesion in the lives of sports teams. One could make the argument that they

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013

Pescosolido and Saavedra

747

highlight the good, the bad, and the ugly of group cohesion in the sports world. In this commentary, we consider why and how group cohesion influences behavior in sports teams.

Group Cohesion Cohesion has historically been considered one of the most important variables in the study of small group dynamics (Carron & Brawley, 2000; Golembiewski, 1962; Lott & Lott, 1965) and has historically been one of the most frequently studied of group-level constructs (Mudrack, 1989). A recent (June 2012) Social Sciences Citation Index search on the term cohesion over the past 5 years yielded in excess of 2,000 hits. Interestingly, most of these studies were focused on cohesion within sport teams. This leads us to ask, “Is cohesion still a relevant issue for small group dynamics and for sport teams in particular? If so, what issues still need to be raised, what questions still need to be answered?” Our assessment of group cohesion in sports teams begins with force field analysis, a framework for examining factors (forces) that influence situations as proposed by Kurt Lewin (1943). He proposed that forces either drive movements toward a goal (helping forces) or block movement toward a goal (hindering forces). Using force field analysis, Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) described group cohesion as developing from a “field of binding social forces” (p. 37) that act on members to stay in the group. Groups that possess strong unifying forces typically stick together over time, whereas groups that lack such bonds between members usually disintegrate. This working definition of cohesion was the basis for most discussions of cohesion from 1950 through approximately 1990, with other studies defining cohesion as bonds of interpersonal attraction (Hogg & Turner, 1985), group spirit (Staw, 1975), and attraction to the group (Mudrack, 1989). Multiple studies and meta-analyses over the years have illustrated the connection between cohesion and performance in a wide sampling of different types of groups working under different conditions (Chang & Bordia, 2001; Evans & Dion, 1991; Griffith, 1988; Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995; Jung & Sosik, 2002). However, other studies have found mixed evidence for a relationship between cohesion and performance (e.g., Langfred, 1998; Mudrack, 1989; Stogdill, 1972). One of the difficulties in determining the impact of cohesion on performance may be the wide variety in definitions of cohesion (Mudrack, 1989; Piper, Marrache, Lacroix, Richardsen, & Jones, 1983).

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013

748

Small Group Research 43(6)

Social cohesion concerns the quality of interpersonal relations and is distinct from task-based cohesion that involves commitment to the group task (Bernthal & Insko, 1993; Hackman, 1992). Group cohesion as the individual’s attraction to the group is also tied to the individual’s attraction to the task that the group is performing. Carron and Brawley (2000) state this clearly: Cohesion has an instrumental basis. All groups—musical groups, work groups, sports teams, committees—form for a purpose. Even groups that may be considered purely “social” in nature have an instrumental basis for their formation. Thus, for example, acquaintances who choose to form a social club to develop or maintain better friendships are cohering for instrumental reasons. (Carron & Brawley, 2000, p. 95) This suggests that cohesion is inherently tied up with instrumentality, or group productivity (however that might be measured). However, not all views of cohesion see it as a force leading to productivity within a group. A high level of social cohesion is not always desirable, as cohesion can amplify both functional and dysfunctional behavioral patterns. For example, Langfred’s (1998) review suggests cohesion is a “doubleedged sword.” Essentially seeing cohesion as a commitment to the norms and shared values held by the group, Langfred (1998) argues that in a group that strongly values group and individual productivity, cohesion will assist in controlling group members—adding to the force of informal group pressure. However in groups that do not place a high, controlling value on productivity, high levels of cohesion can actually be counterproductive. We can envision this happening, for example, in a student group where students’ attention is on issues other than academic study, or a work group that is either consumed with anxiety about change or is in a power struggle or conflict with management. In either of these cases, an individual who either works hard or tries to encourage the group to work harder is met with resistance; and the more cohesive the group is, the stronger that resistance (including marginalization of the productive member) will be. Hackman (1992) also notes this potential effect for cohesion, suggesting that cohesion is essentially a controlling force within a group. As such, compliance toward the group or the group’s accepted authority tends to be very high in cohesive groups. This can lead not only to an unwillingness to counter nonproductive group norms (such as in the Penn State example noted above) but also to rigid, institutionalized thinking and problem solving. At the extreme end, cohesion becomes an ingredient in the phenomenon of

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013

Pescosolido and Saavedra

749

groupthink (Janis, 1982) or identity preservation (Turner, Pratkanis, Probasco, & Leve, 1992), where group members become focused on preservation of the group and their status within the group as opposed to efficient and effective engagement in their stated task. Highly cohesive groups will be less likely to generate among themselves truly innovative approaches to a task, as individual attention and effort is consumed with staying within the boundaries set by group norms and the group’s past experience (Hackman, 1992). Thus social cohesion influences the developmental paths groups follow because it motivates conformity to group norms based on interpersonal rewards (McGrath, 1984). Operationalizing group cohesion has produced inconsistent and varied results depending on the makeup of the group’s field of forces. In many respects group cohesion is an expansive concept that tries to describe the quality of the relationship between individuals and their group. Operational issues, combined with mixed results from a variety of meta-analyses (e.g., Dion & Evans, 1992), lead Carron and Brawley (2000) to consider the possibility that group cohesion may operate in a different manner in sports teams than it does in other types of teams. Specifically, they identified three influences of cohesion: 1. For some teams, group cohesion resulted from a sense of belonging. 2. For other teams, group cohesion stemmed from interdependent work with required coordination. 3. For some teams, group cohesiveness developed from both interpersonal and group attraction. While there is a fair amount of evidence supporting the value of cohesion within sports teams (Carron & Brawley, 2000; Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998; Carron, Bray, & Eys, 2002; Carron, Coleman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002), the evidence for the value of cohesion in other types of teams has been mixed (Carless & De Paola, 2000; Carron & Brawley, 2000; Langfred, 1998). Is there something about sport teams that make them either more sensitive to the positive effects of cohesion (e.g., higher performance due to increased trust, communication, psychological safety,) or less sensitive to its negative effect (e.g., reduced performance due to norms of low performance, conformity to group pressure, poor decision making)? One explanation for these conflicting findings is presented by Carron and Brawley (2000). They suggest that previous, contradictory findings regarding group cohesion arose in part because previous research “failed to take into

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013

750

Small Group Research 43(6)

account the nature of their groups generally and thus the manifestations of cohesiveness specifically” (Carron & Brawley, 2000, p. 92). This explanation is a key factor in understanding how cohesion affects any type of team, but especially sports teams.

Cohesion in Sports Teams Sports teams represent unique opportunities within the realm of group and organizational studies. In comparison to most other types of organizational teams, sport teams have unusual clarity and consistency in terms of member ability, goals, role definitions and relationships, team structure, the rules and procedures by which they must function, and other aspects of their context (Wolfe et al., 2005). We see that there are a number of dimensions (i.e., task, training and development, structure, time, boundaries) to be addressed when contemplating generalizing from sports teams to other types of organizational teams. (Wolfe et al., 2005, p. 202) Within most organizational teams there is potential for conflict between team members or between the team and management regarding a variety of structural issues. Possible areas of conflict include issues regarding the team’s goals, roles, conflicting team membership, or procedures to be followed (e.g., the rules of the game). Within the context of sports teams, however, these conflicts are largely absent due to the highly defined structure of the teams themselves and the highly defined context (e.g., procedures and rules, leagues, highly defined roles) in which they operate. Additionally, Katz (2001) reminds us that there is still a wide variety of sports teams. Of particular importance is the level of interdependence experienced by members of various sports teams. This was highlighted by the work of Keidel (1984, 1987) describing several different prototypical levels of interdependence within sports teams (baseball teams as pooled interdependence, football teams as sequential interdependence, and basketball teams as reciprocal interdependence).

The Role of Context We have considerable evidence that a group’s organizational context can affect group performance (Argote & McGrath, 1993; Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). Examples of influential organizational

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013

Pescosolido and Saavedra

751

context factors include task design and technology (Goodman, 1986; Saavedra, Earley, & Van Dyne, 1993; Straus & McGrath, 1994; Wageman, 1995), reward and organizational support systems (Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Hackman, 1987, 1990; Walton & Hackman, 1986), and organizational structures and routines (Gersick & Hackman, 1990; Gladstein, 1984; Kelly & McGrath, 1985). Our view is that the role that cohesion can play within a group is a function of that group’s task and its work context (specifically, the work system of the group). Some work tasks require complex interdependence that calls for a certain amount of group cohesion to be able to coordinate and communicate effectively. Using Keidel’s (date) typology, basketball (team interdependence) would be one of the most complex sports while baseball is one of the least complex (pooled interdependence). Our template for assessing the value of group cohesion for specific sports is shown in Table 1 in which we examine some of the most popular sports for FBS NCAA athletics (formally Division 1A, the top division in U.S. collegiate football). Group cohesion in a sports context is important when the team must synchronize a response in a competition. Understanding players’ skill sets, preferences, moods, and habits are important for a synchronous response. Cohesion in this context represents a shared social field where the aim is to learn about each other to enhance collective performance. Only those teams who share some aspect of game strategy with their coach, who make realtime decisions in competition, and who benefit from social control or conformity will benefit from an investment in social cohesion. Otherwise, a team may complicate group dynamics unnecessarily and may come to believe that cohesion trumps effective coaching and player skill sets. This is similar to Hackman and Wageman’s (2005) theory of team coaching, that a team coach needs to focus on maximizing team member effort, skill, and team-level coordination and strategy, as opposed to managing team dynamics (i.e., process consultation). Similar teams in other contexts include military special forces, aviation flight demonstration teams like the U.S. Navy’s Blue Angels, and some surgical teams. Generally speaking, these teams have complex performance requirements that necessitate higher levels of team learning and extensive practice. In highly interdependent situations, these teams strive to execute consistently using their full repertoire of member and coaching talent. With continued group development, athletic teams may evolve their coordination strategies creatively during athletic contests. This requires a serious investment in social cohesion to generate the communication, trust, and shared understanding required to have members engage in the development of these

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013

752

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013

Pooled Sequential Sequential/ reciprocal Team Team Pooled Pooled Pooled Pooled Team Team

Baseball Football Hockey

Coach decides Coach decides Coach decides/some player decisions Coach + Team Coach + Team Coach Coach Coach Coach Coach + Team Coach + Team

Game strategy

High High Low Low Low Low High Medium

Low Medium Medium

Communication requirements

High High Low Low Low Low High High

Low Medium Medium

Coordination requirements

High High Low Low Low Low High Medium

Low Medium Medium

Real-time player decision making

High High Low Low Low Low High High

Low Low Medium

Social control (conformity)

High High Low Low Low Low High High

Low Medium Medium

Social cohesion payoff

a Football Bowl Subdivision of the National Collegiate Athletic Association; formerly known as Division 1A; this division is the top level of collegiate football in the United States.

Basketball Volleyball Wrestling Swimming Track Gymnastics Soccer Crew

Interdependence

Sport

Table 1. Social Cohesion Matrix for Division FBS NCAAa Sports

Pescosolido and Saavedra

753

strategies. Developing, supporting, and encouraging group cohesion is relatively straightforward (Thompson, 2012). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Help team members build a collective identity; Make it easy for team members to be close together; Focus on similarities among team members; Put a positive spin on the team’s performance; Challenge the team.

There are several contextual factors that distinguish sports teams from most other work teams and these factors map the foregoing cohesion recipe nicely. First, when contrasted with a competitor, team identity is especially salient (Point 1). This salience builds cohesion and, with unambiguous team member roles, social loafing is extinguished (Harkins & Szymanski, 1989). To play any team sport requires that members be colocated, addressing Point 2 above. Similarities among members (Point 3) are best highlighted under conditions of team interdependence (see Table 1) where coordination and communication are crucial and conformity is needed for effective execution. Point 5 is inherent in the work of sports teams. These teams perform on an athletic stage where the audience is part of the context. Audiences and competitors are powerful sources of energy for performing groups such that they direct and intensify the play that is at the core of the teams’ work (Hackman, 1990). Finally, sports teams receive immediate feedback regarding their minute-to-minute performance and there is a definitive win or loss at game’s end. To put a spin on losing a contest (Point 4) requires coaching finesse that, at the end of the day, does not ameliorate a loss. This point is perhaps the thorniest of the cohesion recipe. Repeated losses will, undoubtedly, erode group cohesion regardless of spin. Remember that most athletic contests include public expression. Fans are hard on teams that lose consistently. They want to leave a contest lauding a hearty “We won!”

Conclusion Group cohesion is a complex, multidimensional construct. It cannot be simplified as a single element or generalized across groups. While members of a hockey team may develop greater understanding of shared strategies and tactics over a season, members of a group therapy session may develop feelings of acceptance and a sense of belonging, and members of a business unit may develop a sense of shared responsibility and success. Because cohesion can be represented in many different forms, there is no

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013

754

Small Group Research 43(6)

such thing as a standard cohesive group. We see little value in continuing to use an umbrella concept to represent multidimensional concepts. Instead, we recommend delineating component constructs (e.g., identity, mood, belongingness). However, for sports teams team cohesion is still a “quick and dirty” assessment of the “field of binding social forces” (Festinger, et al., 1950, p. 274) operating to forge group cohesion. It is not the case that cohesion operates differently in sports teams as Carron and Brawley (2000) suggest. Instead, the vastly different contextual factors that are both present and clearly articulated in sports teams enable researchers to observe and measure team cohesion clearly, and in a meaningful manner. Using a figure-ground perception analogy, the ground is always well organized, expected, and reliable in the sports world. The figures are always the competing teams. Play ball! Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References Argote, L., & McGrath, J. E. (1993). Group processes in organizations: Continuity and change. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 333-389). London, UK: John Wiley. Asinof, E. (1988). Eight men out: The Black Sox and the 1919 World Series. New York, NY: Henry Holt. Associated Press. (2012, July 12). Freeh Report: Penn St. hid key facts. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8159195/report-says-penn-statenittany-lions-senior-officials-disregarded-children-welfare Bernthal, P., & Insko, C. (1993). Cohesiveness without groupthink: The interactive effects of social and task cohesion. Group & Organization Management, 18, 66-87. doi:10.1177/1059601193181005 Carless, S. A., & De Paolo, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31, 71-88. doi:10/1177/104649640003100104 Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89-106. doi:10.1177/104649640003100105

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013

Pescosolido and Saavedra

755

Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M. A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 119-126. doi:10.1080/026404102317200828 Carron, A. V., Coleman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 168-188. Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesiongroup performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32, 379-405. doi:10.1177/ 104649640103200401 Dion, K. R., & Evans, C. R. (1992). On cohesiveness: Reply to Keyton and other critics of the construct. Small Group Research, 23, 242-250. doi:10.1177/ 1046496492232007 Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175-186. doi:10.1177/1046496491222002 Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP. (2012, July 12). Report of the special investigative counsel regarding the actions of the Pennsylvania State University related to the child sexual abuse committed by Gerald A. Sandusky. Retrieved from http://www .scribd.com/doc/99901696/Report-of-the-Special-Investigative-Counsel-Regarding-the-Actions-of-the-Pennsylvania-State-University-Related-to-the-Child-SexualAbuse-Committed-by Gersick, C. J. G., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65-97. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(90)90047-D Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 499-517. Golembiewski, R. T. (1962). The small group: An analysis of research concepts and operations. Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press Goodman, P. S. (1986). Impact of task and technology on group performance. In P. S. Goodman & Associates (Eds.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 120-167). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Griffith, J. (1988). Measurement of group cohesion in U.S. Army units. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 149-171. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0902_6 Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26, 497-520. doi:10.1177/1046496495264003

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013

756

Small Group Research 43(6)

Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 269-313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In Lorsch, J. W. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NH: Prentice Hall. Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnet & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 199-267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30, 269-287. doi:10.5465/AMR.2005.16387885. Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 934-941. doi:10.1037/00223514.56.6.934 Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1985). Interpersonal attraction, social identification, and psychological group formation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 51-66. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420150105 Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Jung, D., & Sosik, J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33, 313-336. doi:10.1177/10496402033003002 Katz, N. (2001). Sports teams as a model for workplace teams: Lessons and liabilities. Academy of Management Executive, 15, 56-67. doi:10.5465/AME.2001.5229533 Keidel, R. W. (1984). Baseball, football, and basketball: Models for business. Organizational Dynamics, 12, 4-18. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(84)90021-4 Keidel, R. W. (1987). Team sport models as a generic organizational framework. Human Relations, 40, 591-612. doi:10.1177/001872678704000904 Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1985). Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction of four-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 395-407. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.2.395 Langfred, C. W. (1998). Is cohesiveness a double-edged sword? An investigation of the effects of group cohesiveness on performance. Small Group Research, 29, 124-143. doi:10.1177/1046496498291005 Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the “field at a given time.” Psychological Review, 50, 292-310. (Republished (1997) in Resolving Social Conflicts & Field Theory in Social Science. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association). doi:10.1037/h0062738 Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecendent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309. doi:10.1037/h0022386

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013

Pescosolido and Saavedra

757

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Group cohesiveness and productivity: A closer look. Human Relations, 42, 771-785. doi:10.1177/001872678904200902 Piper, W. E., Marrache, M., Lacroix, R., Richardsen, A. M., & Jones, B. D. (1983). Cohesion as a basic bond in groups. Human Relations, 36, 93-108. doi:10.1177/001872678303600201 Saavedra, R., Early, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in taskperforming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61-72. doi:10.1037/00219010.78.1.61 Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the “causes” of performance: A general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 414-432. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(75)90060-4 Stogdill, R. (1972). Group productivity, drive and cohesiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 26-43. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(72)90035-9 Straus, S. G., & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 87-97. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.87 Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-133. doi:10.1037/0003066X.45.2.120 The 20th Century Awards: Sports Illustrated honors world’s greatest athletes. (1999, December 3). Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ features/cover/news/1999/12/02/awards/ Thompson, L. L. (2012). Making the team: A guide for managers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Turner, M. E., Pratkanis, A. R., Probasco, P., & Leve, C. (1992). Threat, cohesion, and group effectiveness: Testing a social identity maintenance perspective on groupthink. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 781-796. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.5.781 Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145-180. Walton, R. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1986). Groups under contrasting management strategies. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 168-201). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wolfe, R. A., Weick, K. E., Usher, J. M., Terborg, J. R., Poppo, L., Murrell, A. J., & Jourdan, J. S. (2005). Sport and organizational studies: Exploring synergy. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 182-210. doi:10.1177/1056492605275245

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013

758

Small Group Research 43(6)

Bios Anthony T. Pescosolido is an associate professor of management in the Paul College of Business and Economics at the University of New Hampshire, USA. His interests include emergent group processes and dynamics, and their contributions to long-term group effectiveness. His research has appeared in Human Relations, Leadership Quarterly, and Small Group Research. Richard Saavedra is a visiting associate professor in the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University, USA. His interests include work team design and management, mood and behavior, and social influence. His research has appeared in outlets such as Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Journal of Organizational Behavior.

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEW HAMPSHIRE on August 6, 2013