Cohesion and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review of Disparities Between Project Teams, Production Teams, and Service Teams
Abstract
The management of project teams is evolving from managing technical processes to focusing on psychosocial determinants of performance. This trend puts a strain on project management theory and practice. Past meta-analyses on the cohesion—performance relationship show a positive correlation. However, they integrate effect sizes across different types of teams and settings. To clarify this issue for project teams, this meta-analysis differentiates 33 cohesion—performance correlations depending on whether teams are project, production, or service teams in organizational or academic settings. Results show that types of teams and settings are moderators. Project teams in organizational and academic settings show large effect sizes and differ from other teams. Theoretical considerations point to five interrelated modifiers: task uncertainty, task versus outcome performance, student samples' mental representation of the project outcome, and group heterogeneity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Use of a convenience sample of students is a limitation in terms of practical implications.
“Use of a convenience sample of students could be another limitation in terms of practical implications, even though student teams are known to provide useful insights into the dynamics of team work and creativity (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009;Qiu et al., 2009).”
From Antecedents of Team Creativity: An Examination of Team Emotional Intelligence, Team Trust and Collaborative Culture (2010) · cites this paper as Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194 · see citing works
Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.193 · Cited by 4,256 · see citing works
A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict
Jehn, K. A. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393638 · Cited by 4,050 · see citing works
A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259182 · Cited by 3,659 · see citing works
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023 · see citing works
The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210 · Cited by 1,398 · see citing works
Group Cohesion and Performance: A Meta-Analysis
Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496491222002 · Cited by 535 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010) · Creativity and Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x · Cited by 479 · see citing works
Mathieu, J. E., Kukenberger, M. R., D'Innocenzo, L., & Reilly, G. (2015) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0038898 · Cited by 316 · see citing works
Measuring Team Cohesion: Observations from the Science
Salas, E., Grossman, R., Hughes, A. M., & Coultas, C. W. (2015) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720815578267 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
Grossman, R., Nolan, K., Rosch, Z., Mazer, D., & Salas, E. (2022) · Organizational Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/20413866211041157 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Buvik, M. P., & Tvedt, S. D. (2017) · Project Management Journal · doi:10.1177/875697281704800202 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Azad, A., Kovanovic, V., Korolkiewicz, M., Zamecnik, A., Joksimovic, S., & Cukurova, M. (2026) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102268 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chiocchio, F., & Essiembre, H.
- Affiliations
- Université de Montréal (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Chiocchio, François
- Venue
- Small Group Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-05-04
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 382-420
- ISSN
- 1046-4964 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8278
- OpenAlex
- W2063841963
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 11.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Small Group Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Construction Project Management and Performance
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
- Keywords
- team cohesion, team performance, project teams, production teams, service teams, task uncertainty, group heterogeneity, student teams, academic settings, organizational context
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
