CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUTION.

1.1.Background To The Study.

Group cohesion is considered the bond or tie that keeps the work group
together.Although group cohesion has been traditionally viewed as a unitary construct,
recent researchers have provided considerable support for a two-dimensional construct that
includes both the social and task aspects of cohesion , Zaccaro and McCoy (2013) found
that both social and task cohesion are needed when groups require interaction to
succeed.Zaccaro and Lowe(2015) found that group cohesion predicted group performance
on an additive group task whereas social cohesion impeded productivity by generating
task-interfering exchanges among group members.

Group cohesion is also essential key components of effective teams,and it's also means
the degree of attachment of the members to their group. If group cohesion is high, the
interaction between members of the group is high and the degree of agreement in group
opinion is high which can lead to high performance for effectiveness inorganisations. A
cohesive group usually has its members share the group goals and have common interests
and backgrounds composing of small members in numbers, who interact among
themselves quite frequently and interpersonal communication is very effective with group
having a history of past success.

Working together as a group to achieve the desired goals has an everlasting

relevance. When the members of an organization or an institution come forward as a group
with the aim to give top notch performance it not only enhances the productivity but also
creates good harmony between all the members. Organizational Behaviour is certainly
incomplete without understanding Group Cohesion. Thus the proper and efficient use of
group cohesion in an organization bolsters the group working and creates a good team
1
spirit among its members. Though the concept sounds as an onerous one to understand it is
quite simple in every aspect. Group cohesiveness is the extent to which group members are
loyal and committed to the group and to each member. When the group is highly cohesive
the members work well together, support, validate and trust each other further they are
generally effective at achieving their chosen goals. Obviously the group cohesion brings a
good attachment between the members in an organization. In this study we mainly focus
on the value and the need for having the group cohesion in every organization. Models of
work group effectiveness are used to depict that communication and cooperation facilitate
information flow and coordinate collective efforts as well as promote openness and
interpersonal relationships. Researchers of communication and cooperation in groups
suggest that effective communication and cooperation not onlypromote problem solving,
but also allow groups to coordinate efforts towards a common purpose, thereby increasing
the group‘s performance. According to Jones and George (2016), many organizations have
sought to increase cooperation between people and groups byreengineering their structures
into more flatter, team-based forms, in which authority is decentralized to empowered
lower level employees.

Although group cohesion are considered to be important key concepts to effectiveness

within work in an organization, they have not been extensively empirically tested and
reported in the literature. Decision making in groups is another important factor that
impactsboth group cohesion and group performance (Chansler, Swamidass & Cammann,
2003).Many organizations have complex organizational structures that require input and
participation from employees at multiple levels within the organization.

1.2.Statement Of The Problem.

Group cohesion is central to understanding work group processes, behavior, and

effectiveness. Most people have had both good and bad experiences from participating in
such group work. One important element that influences one’s group work experience is
2
cohesion. Group cohesiveness can be defined as a group session wherein which, group of
people connects them with the help of similar interest and program. Moreover, it is a
process where a group of people for a group or a team consider their similar interest and
ability.

However, the problem identified in this study is lack of consensus in the groups;
lack of team work, social cohesion, task cohesion and psychotherapy group contribute to
low organizational effectiveness in the Ajayi polytechnic Ikere Ekiti, Ekiti State. The
manifestation mentioned above if not timely handled may lead to low productivity

1.3. Objective Of The Study.

The major objective of this study is to examine the relationship between group
cohesiveness and organization effectiveness. The specific objective are

1. To determine the relationship between organization to accomplish a goal

2. To determine the relationship between task cohesion and adaptability.

1.4.Research Questions.

1. Does reward affect employees performance?

2. Does good physical working environment for the employees aid to the
effectiveness of employees performance?

3 . Does employees compensation affect employees performance?.

Research Hypotheses.

The research hypothesis to be tested in this study is stated in their null form below;

1. There is no significant effect of reward on employees performance

3
 2. There is no significant of good physical working environment for the employees aid
to the effectiveness of employees performance

3. There is no significant influence of employees compensation on employees

performance

1.5.Significance Of Study.

TO THE GOVERNMENT.

Group cohesiveness can increase the personal bonds that members feel in government.

They tend to draw emotional strength from each other based on friendliness, respect,
support, achievement, protection and a feeling of security.

Group members will be more likely to help each other in need, strengthening their bonds.

TO THE SOCIETY.

I. Social cohesion contributes to a wide variety of social outcomes such as health and
economic prosperity.
II. It's also the willingness of members of a society to cooperate with each other in
order to survive
III. It creates stronger bonds within and across different groups, and fosters greater trust
in the institutions of government.

1.6.Scope of the study.

4
 This study focuses on group cohesion as an aid for effective performance in an
organization , in this research work , the area of the study is Ikere Ekiti , the study covers
employees at Ajayi polytechnic.

1.7.Limitation Of The Study.

This is limited to Ikere Ekiti and it is been carried out at Ajayi polytechnic Ikere
Ekiti, Ekiti State.

1.8.Definition Of Terms.

Group. A group is a set of people who have the same interests or aims, and who
organize themselves to work or act together, A group is also know as a set of people,
organizations, or things which are considered together because they have something in
common.

Cohesion:- The action or fact of forming a united whole, the act or state of sticking
together tightly. The force of attraction that holds molecules of a given substance together.

Group cohesion:- Can be define as the extent to which group members are attracted
to the group and its goals. Cohesion can consist of feelings of interpersonal liking, task
commitment, and group pride.

Organization:- An organized group of people with a particular purpose, such as a

business or a government department, An organization is a group of people who work
together, like a neighborhood association, a charity, a union, or a corporation.

Performanc:-A performance is an act of staging or presenting a play, concert, or

other form of entertainment.

5
 Effective:- Successful in producing a desired or intended result.adequate to
accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result, successful or achieving
the results that you want:

Cooperation:- The action or process of working together to the same end.

Team:-A group of people forming one side in a competitive form, it's also know as
anumber of people who act together as a group, either in a sport or in order to achieve
something

Work :-Activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a

purpose or result.

Teamwork:-Is the collaborative effort of a group to achieve a common goal or to

complete a task in the most effective and efficient way.

6
 CHAPTER TWO.

Literature review

The volume of research, lack of integration, in consistency in measurements and the

conceptualization of group cohesion can be traced to the milieu of process variables and
parameters used and this dilemma can be resolved through a systematic approach to the
evaluation of parameters used (Drescher,Burlingame,&Fuhriman,2012).

2.1 Conceptual Review

Group cohesion
Organizational effectiveness

- Goal accomplishment
Task cohesion
- Adepablity
Social cohesion

7
Researcher’s Conceptualization, 2020

Relationship between Group Cohesion and Organizational Effectiveness

Organizational effectiveness remains the most widely studied variablein the group
cohesion literature and researchers have continually explored the cohesion-organizational
effectiveness continuum due to its complexity and relevance to group studies (Mullen &
Cooper). Studies on the two constructs have been examined within groups at different
levels and the plethora of meta-analyses conducted on their relationship reinforces the
growing attention enjoyed (Chiocchio & Essiembre

The divergence in outcomes in these meta-analysis and research reinforces the

complexity of these constructs and time dimension effect on the findings (Levine &
Mooreland). The debate on which impacts the others suggest that performance leads to
cohesion and group cohesion leads to organizational effectiveness (Chang & Bordia).
Components of cohesion had different levels of effect and correlation between
effectiveness (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon).

The nature of cohesiveness in a group is a reflection of the level of communication

and bonding among group members and results in task, role commitment, group pride and
interpersonal attraction (Rosh, Offermann, & Van, 2012). Campbell and Martins also
noted that group cohesion has been studied among diverse groups and it positively
influences organizational effectiveness.
Group pride plays a positive role in situations where the relationship between effectiveness
and cohesion are positive and often dependent on the level of effectiveness in past
performances (Rosh, Offermann & Van, 2012). Over all, the relationship between
cohesion and organizational effectiveness has been found to be positive in some studies
and negative in other studies, this seeming contradiction confirms the complexity of
8
research in group cohesion (Hornaday, 2014). Mullen and Copper (1994) experimental and
associational method are relevant in investigating the nature of the relationship between
group cohesiveness and organizational effectiveness, the former suggests the creation of
high and low level group cohesiveness to examine the effect each type would have on
group effectiveness and the latter requires an in-depth appraisal of the group’s opinion of
cohesion with both methods leading to different outcome

2.1.1 Group Cohesion and Performance .

Performance remains the most widely studied variable in the group cohesion
literature and researchers have continually explored the cohesion-performance continuum
due to its complexity and relevance to group studies (Mullen & Cooper, Studies on the two
constructs has been examined within groups at different levels and the plethora of meta-
analyses conducted on their relationship reinforces the growing attention enjoyed (Gully,
Devine & Whitney, 2012; Mullen &Cooper,Pescosolido & Saavedra, 2012; Wise, 2014).
The divergence in outcomes in these meta-analysis and research reinforces the complexity
of these constructs and time dimension effect on the findings (Levine & Mooreland.)The
debate on which impacts the others suggest that performance leads to cohesion (Mullen &
Cooper, and group cohesion leads to performance (Chang & Bordia,). Components of
cohesion had different levels of effect and correlation between performance and cohesion
(Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon,) .The nature of cohesiveness in a group is a reflection
of the level of communication and bonding among group members and results in task, role
commitment, group pride and interpersonal attraction (Rosh, Offermann, & Van, 2012;
Shaw. Group pride plays a positive role in situations where the relationship between
performance and cohesion are positive and often dependent on success in past
performances (Rosh et al., 2012). Overall, the relationship between cohesion and
performance has been found to be positive in some studies and negative in other studies,
this seeming contradiction confirms the complexity of research in group cohesion

9
(Hornaday, 2014). Mullen and Copper) experimental and associational method are relevant
in investigating the nature of the relationship between cohesiveness and performance, the
former suggests the creation of high and low level group cohesiveness to examine the
effect each type would have on group performance and the latter requires an in-depth
appraisal of the group’s opinion of cohesion with both methods leading to different
outcomes. Chiocchio and Essiembre.meta-analysis of cohesion and performance used
group type and settings (context) as moderating variables to distinguish the cohesion-
performance correlations. The two moderators identified 33 group cohesion-performance
association, they also contrasted cohesion and performance in project and work groups
from the perspective of effects and behavioral measure of performance and discovered that
cohesion–performance correlation was stronger and higher in project teams for behavioral
measures and stronger in work teams for outcome measures.
2..1.2 Group Cohesion: The Timing Effect .

Burlingame et a study on time dimension highlighted the importance of examining

time horizon and dimensions in cohesion studies. The timing of the various analyses in
group cohesion research has continually contributed to the contradictory results. Mulvey
and Klein,examined the influence of social perception on group processes and
performance in two projects over an 8 week time frame and the outcome of their findings
confirmed that group goals have a strong correlation to group performance. Greene
investigated the relationship between group cohesion and performance and affirmed the
existence of a common association between the constructs. Chang and Bordia also
examined group cohesion and group performance, relationship between tasks and social
cohesion at the group level and effect of longitudinal changes over 5 weeks and posits that
performance-cohesion relationship is stronger than cohesion-performance linkage using
Time 1 and Time 2 with group cohesion construed as an antecedent and not a consequence
of group performance and different time frames used in most studies has not yielded
conclusive results. Taylor, Doria and Tyler observed that poor performance by the group
10
can have a negative impact on cohesion which is dependent upon the attribution of the
group.
2.1.3 cohesion and Group Size.

Groups exist in different forms and the size of a group is often a function of the
mission and vision for creating and joining the group, their size varies in dyads and triad
with multiple spatial aggregations (Forsyth. Studies have involved groups with varying
sizes and human elements with distinct behaviors, perceptions and motives. The fusion of
individual behaviors of members and leadership of groups determines the nature of
cohesiveness and forces compelling members to remain in the group. The effect of size in
group dynamics varies from small to big groups, closely knitted groups to loosely knit
groups and while it should be easier to manage small groups, the dynamics of large groups
presents an array of in-group and out-group dynamics (Ratner, Dotsch, Wigboldus,
Knippenberg, & Amodio, 2014) resulting in the emergence of different level cohesiveness
and sub-groups that are pursuing different objective. Gooding and Wagner, meta-analysis
on size-performance relationship indicates that there is a sharp difference in relations
between subunit size and performance, organizational size and performance and concluded
that organizational size does not translate to economies of scale.
Carron and Spink examination of the relationship between cohesion and group size using
four studies posited that smaller groups had a greater level of task and social cohesion than
big groups. Evaluating the impact of size on cohesion in different settings and contexts
results in divergent outcomes, this variable is critical and one of the most influential
variable in determining the structure and motivation levels in groups. The presumption that
cohesion is presumed to decrease as the size of a group increases in sport (Widmeyer,
Lawrence, & Carron, could apply to other fields. This may be an indicator of the
emergence of diverse group problems like loafing, polarization and group think in the
group. Managing the social networks, linkages and sociometry in small groups is easier

11
compared to bigger groups where several factors and variable interplay to determine the
level of cohesiveness in different types of groups.

2.1.4 The Concept Of Group Cohesion.

Group cohesiveness can be defined as a bond that pulls people toward membership
in a particular group and resists separation from that group. Group cohesion is the sum of
all the factors causing members of a group to stay in the group or be attracted to the group.
Group cohesion also depicts a broad and dynamic process which is reflected in the
tendency for a group to stick, bond together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals
and institutional objectives (Widmeyer, Carron, &Brawley,) Carronand Brawley(2012) in
their cohesion conceptual and measurement studies suggested the necessity of evaluating
and taking cognizance of the structure and context of groups in providing an operational
definition for group cohesion.

Group cohesion is a social process that characterizes groups whose members

interact with each other and refers to the forces that push group members closer together.
Group cohesiveness is a multidimensional concept. An excessive number of group
cohesion definitions, from those that focus on interpersonal attraction among group
members, to others that address various components that comprise group cohesion, can be
found in the literature. As a result, defining the construct has caused confusion,
inconsistency, and lack of uniformity among many researchers (Mudrack, 2017).However,
the different perspectives from different fields may account for the multitude of definitions
and measures of group cohesion. Although a large variation of group cohesion definitions
is found in the literature. Group cohesion in this study is defined as the process which is
reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of
its goals and objectives (Carron). This definition of group cohesion has been chosen for
the reason that it applies to work groups in particular and encompasses both task and social
cohesion (Carron & Brawley).
12
Dimension of Group Cohesion.
Task Cohesion.

According to Mullenand Copper (2014), task cohesiveness can be enhanced by

emphasizing similar goals andensuring that the pursued goals are important to all
members. Both sociall and task cohesiveness can be promoted by encouraging.

Task cohesion refers to the degree to which group members share group goals and work
together to meet their goals. Task cohesion is defined as a shared commitment and
motivation to coordinate group efforts to achieve common work-related tasks or
goals(MacCoun, 2016). Task cohesion is unity or commonality based on skill and ability
to do the task at hand whether by one's self or with others. By task cohesion, it works
toward a conflict or a point of interest with ways and possible solutions in mind.
Organizational Effectiveness

Organizational effectiveness is an all encompassing concept that described the level

of proactiveness and ability to achieve goal of an organization. The managerial
responsibility is to maintain an optimal balance among these components. Effectiveness
generally refers to the extent to which an organization is able to achieve its goals. Bernard
(2014) defines effectiveness as the accomplishment of recognized objectives of
cooperative effort and adds for emphasis that the degree of accomplishment is the degree
of effectiveness. But these goals are at times difficult to define and measure, inconsistent,
seen differently by different organizational members or even used as camouflage for the
hidden agenda of the powerful forces within the organization.

Furthermore, Steers reminds us of the difference between operative goals (what

organizations actually do) and official goals (what they claim they do) and that what
matters are the operative goals. To address some of these shortcomings, Zamuto (2014)
adopts a stakeholder approach by defining organizational effectiveness as human

13
judgments about the desirability of the outcomes of organizational performance from the
vantage position of the varied constituencies directly and indirectly affected by the
organization.
2.2 Theoretical Review.
Social cognitive theory posits that both individual and group behaviour are shaped
byreciprocal causality as behaviors, personal characteristics, and environmental factors
interact.
As such, social cognitive theory may offer a fitting model for the causal individual
sociopsychological processes that influence the level of group cohesion (Campbell &
Martens). Thus, group cohesion may be influenced by enactive attainment, vicarious
experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological state.
According to Bandura, performance or task attainment is based on one‘s personal
accomplishments and is the most influential source of information, followed by vicarious
experiences, i.e., observing others while they perform a task, andpersuasion, in which
motivation or positive feedback is given. According to Campbell and Martin, enactive
attainment, repeated positive performance, when combined with verbal persuasion
between groups members would conceivably lead to increases in group cohesion, while
repeated failures would lower beliefs about group cohesion.
Social cognitive theory is an important concept that applies to groups because it may be
used to explain how individuals learn while they‘re in social situations by interacting with
and observing other individuals (Swanson and Holton). Socialization can be defined as the
process by which organizations pass on the culture of the organization to new employees
and teach them how to be effective in the organization (Swanson and Holton).

2.2.1 Social Identity Theory.

Social identity theory has also been used as a theoretical framework to explain group
cohesion. Social identity theory was developed by Tajfel and Turner (1981) and is used to

14
explain when and why individuals identify and behave within social groups.
There are three psychological processes of social identity theory:

1) social categorization- individuals often place themselves and others into categories;
2) identification- individuals relate to certain groups (in-groups) that emotionally
impact their self-concept; and
3) social comparison- group members compare their groups (the in-group)to other
relevant groups (out-group) and usually favor the group to which they belong
(ingroup) over other groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

2.2.2 Self-categorization Theory.

Self-categorization theory is a sub-set of self identity theory; it has also been used as a
theoretical framework for group cohesion. For example, Hogg (1992) used identification
with a group to define cohesion. Self-categorization is the process by which individuals
selfidentify as a member of a social group context or situation surrounding the
categorization. In other words, the context of the group forms the self-concept or
categorization of each group member.

2.2.4 Recommendations.

Based on my finding and conclusion, the study recommended that:

1. Management should be encouraging social cohesion in order to fuel accomplishment of
group goals.
2 . Management should allow group members to share group goals together so as to enable
employees to be more proactive and adapt to the organizational climate.
3. Social cohesion should be used by management to enhance group commitments and

15
improve adaptive system.
4. Management should focus more on task cohesion so as to achieve quick goal
accomplishment.

16
CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

The survey research method was adopted and used in collecting data from the study area.
This design is appropriate for an academic research of this sort which study a small
population and generalize the findings on the entire population.

3.2 Population of the Study

The population comprise of the entire staff of Captain Cook. Thus in the light of this, the
researcher studied the headquarter of Captain Cook with a population of 100 staff.

3.3 Sample and sampling techniques

Out of the total population of 100 persons, 20 senior staffs, 30 middle staff and 50 junior
staff were selected as the sample size of the study.

3.4 Research Instrument

The Questionnaire was the instrument used to collect empirical data (primary data) from
the field. However, secondary data were obtained through source documents.

3.5 Validity of the Instrument

In order to obtain the validity of the instrument, the supervisor of the project was requested
to judge the appropriateness, comprehensiveness and clarity of items in the questionnaire
through content validation. His contribution in form of suggestion and constructive
criticism were used in the final draft.
17
3.6 Reliability of the Instrument

A pilot study was carried out on persons from water board headquarters Kaduna. To
pretest the efficacy of the questionnaire, the feedback received form the pilot survey was
used in the final draft which enhances it reliability

3.7 Data Analysis

The researcher personally collected data from the respondents through the help of the
human resource manager. After distribution of the questionnaire, respondents were given
five days to fill out the questionnaire. This time frame was given in order to give ample
time to the respondents to reflect on the items on the questionnaire.

The Mean (X) was used to analyze the five Likert scale questionnaire in line with the
research questions. While the frequency count and sample percentage was used to analyze
respondent characteristics. Data were presented in tables simply constructed in rows and
columns to facilitate the analysis of the five likert questionnaire.

Formula for calculating Mean (X) = fx

Where:  = Summation

f = frequency

x = mean

n = number of occurrence

=5+4+3+2+1=3

18
 5

Decision Rule

5.0 – 4.5 Strongly Agreed

4.4 – 3.5 Agreed

3.4 – 2.5 Undecided

2.4 – 1.5 Disagreed

1.4 – 0.5 Strongly Disagreed

Using the Liker 5 point scale the mean score of 3.5 is referred to as cut off point. Any item
with a mean of 3.5 and above will be considered agreed or adequate while any mean score
below 3.5 is inadequate or disagree.

19