CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 133Team Dynamics and PerformanceSport Psychology and PerformanceSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 218 of the 218 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The team cohesion-performance relationship: A meta-analysis exploring measurement approaches and the changing team landscape

Grossman, Rebecca, Nolan, Kevin, Rosch, Zachary, Mazer, David, Salas, Eduardo·2022·Organizational Psychology Review
DOI 10.1177/20413866211041157
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Team cohesion is an important antecedent of team performance, but our understanding of this relationship is mired by inconsistencies in how cohesion has been conceptualized and measured. The nature of teams is also changing, and the effect of this change is unclear. By meta-analyzing the cohesion-performance relationship ( k = 195, n = 12,023), examining measurement moderators, and distinguishing modern and traditional team characteristics, we uncovered various insights. First, the cohesion-performance relationship varies based on degree of proximity. More proximal measures –task cohesion, referent-shift, and behaviorally-focused– show stronger relationships compared to social cohesion, direct consensus, and attitudinally-focused, which are more distal. Differences are more pronounced when performance metrics are also distal. Second, group pride is more predictive than expected. Third, the cohesion-performance relationship and predictive capacity of different measures are changing in modern contexts, but findings pertaining to optimal measurement approaches largely generalized. Lastly, important nuances across modern characteristics warrant attention in research and practice. Plain Language Summary: Team cohesion is an important antecedent of team performance, but our understanding of this relationship is mired by inconsistencies in how cohesion has been conceptualized and measured. The nature of teams has also changed over time, and the effect of this change is unclear. By meta-analyzing the cohesion-performance relationship ( k = 195, n = 12,023), examining measurement moderators, and distinguishing between modern and traditional team characteristics, we uncovered various insights for both research and practice. First, the cohesion-performance relationship varies based on degree of proximity. Measures that are more proximal to what a team does – those assessing task cohesion, utilizing referent shift items, and capturing behavioral manifestations of cohesion – show stronger relationships with performance compared to those assessing social cohesion, utilizing direct consensus items, and capturing attitudinal manifestations of cohesion, which are more distal. These differences are more pronounced when performance metrics are also more distal. Second, despite being understudied, the group pride-performance relationship was stronger than expected. Third, modern team characteristics are changing both the overall cohesion-performance relationship and the predictive capacity of different measurement approaches, but findings pertaining to the most optimal measurement approaches largely generalized in that these approaches were less susceptible to the influence of modern characteristics. However, in some contexts, distal cohesion metrics are just as predictive as their more proximal counterparts. Lastly, there are important nuances across different characteristics of modern teams that warrant additional research attention and should be considered in practice. Overall, findings greatly advance science and practice pertaining to the team cohesion-performance relationship.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/20413866211041157

Cites

218 of 218 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 218 references

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. *Bailey E. J., 2007, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 68, 1969
  2. *Ball J. R., 1976, Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 1, 271
  3. 10.2307/2579670 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Crawford E. R., 2014, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 75
  5. *Cooper B. L., 2004, Group norms and performance: A general model of work team performance using Jackson’s return potential model of group norms
  6. *Curtis A. B., 2004, The impact of task type on the relationship between group constructs and performance
  7. *Dailey R. C., 1978, Journal of Management, 4, 69
  8. *Dayan M., 2008, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23, 566
  9. *Druskat V. U., 1995, A team competency study of self-managed manufacturing teams
  10. *Dusig M. S., 2000, Enhancing team confidence: Collective efficacy as a mediator of the relationship between team leadership style and team outcomes
  11. *Eisenberg J., 2001, The effects of reward schemes, individualism-collectivism, and intrinsic motivation on teams’ creative performance
  12. Farrar T. D., 2010, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 71, 645
  13. *George J. A., 1999, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 59, 5147
  14. *Halfhill T. R., 2001, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61, 5037
  15. *Hambley L. A., 2006, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering
  16. *Kane T. D., 1996, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 57, 2198
  17. *Keller R. T., 1986, Academy of Management Journal, 29, 715
  18. *Kickul G. H., 2000, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 61, 2270
  19. *Ko J., 2005, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 66, 2290
  20. *Langfred C. W., 1998, The importance of cross-level analysis and contextual contingencies when granting autonomy to groups and individuals in organizations
  21. *Lowe T. A., 1994, The effects of unexpected change in the context of a crisis on work group effectiveness
  22. *Marberry S. J., 2007, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering
  23. *May K. E., 1994, Understanding the differential effects of demographic- and ability-based diversity on the processes and performance of decision-making teams
  24. *Melnick M. J., 1974, Research Quarterly, 45, 1
  25. *Metts Iv V. L., 1996, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 56, 4623
  26. Nunnally J. C., 1978, Psychometric theory
  27. *Panzer F. J., 2003, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64, 1534
  28. *Paskevich D. M., 1996, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering
  29. *Phillips J. I., 1996, The effect of group resources and individual group processes on the use of minority knowledge and group decision-making outcomes
  30. *Prien K. O., 2000, The effects of cooperative learning, cohesion, and commitment on team performance
  31. *Purvanova R. K., 2009, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 70, 726
  32. *Rapisarda B. A., 2003, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering
  33. *Riolli-Saltzman L., 1999, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 59, 3080
  34. *Schmidt J., 2008, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 69, 2665
  35. *Seong J. Y., 2015, Journal of Management, 41, 1184
  36. *Shapcott K. M., 2010, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering
  37. Siebold G. L., 2006, Military Life: The Psychology of Serving in Peace and Combat, 1, 185
  38. *Tesluk P. E., 1996, An investigation of work group management of the technological environment: Implications for group performance
  39. *Tziner A., 1983, Journal of Occupational Behavior, 4, 137
  40. *Vacharkulksemsuk T., 2013, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering
  41. *Weng L.-C., 2011, Asia Pacific Management Review, 16, 181
  42. *Wolff S. B., 1998, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 59, 0889
  43. *Wong S.-S., 2003, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 63, 3261
  44. *Yousofpourfard H., 2012, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences
  45. *Zakrajsek R. A., 2007, Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–131 of 131

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Grossman, R., Nolan, K., Rosch, Z., Mazer, D., & Salas, E.
Affiliations
  • Hofstra University (US)
  • Rice University, USA
Corresponding author
Grossman, Rebecca
ORCID
Grossman, Rebecca
Venue
Organizational Psychology Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2021-09-09
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
181-238
ISSN
  • 2041-3866 (ISSN-L)
  • 2041-3874
DOI
10.1177/20413866211041157
OpenAlex
W3199995837
Cited by
133
References
218
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 4
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Organizational Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • Rice Research Repository (Rice University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
team cohesion, team performance, task cohesion, social cohesion, cohesion measurement, team characteristics, performance indicators, team diversity, team heterogeneity, team size, team leadership, team decision-making

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