Introduction
Group cohesiveness is considered one of the good qualities inside teams, which encourages teamwork, trust, and friendship among members. The statement seeks to convey that this is a trait that team leaders should instill among their teams. On a closer look, the apparent benefit turned out to be more complex, with myriad factors influencing the outcome. This essay critically reviews the given statement and examines the advantages and constraints associated with team cohesiveness in the context of leadership and teamwork.
The Merits of Group Cohesiveness
At first glance, group cohesiveness may look beneficial as it helps members to feel they belong to a group and to socialize among themselves. The phenomenon by which the individual identifies with their group increases the likelihood that the group members will have better cooperation, unblemished communication, and mutual support to attain their common cause. This kind of culture encourages mutual respect and trust, which results in higher productivity and future satisfaction (Fonseca et al., 2019). Apart from this, group cohesiveness results in better motivation and support. Through cohesive groups, individuals get the camaraderie that also provides social support. This helps counter and increase, thus boosting individual and collective performance (Mutonyi et al., 2020). The research suggests that the core groups are better at handling thread-changing conditions and display more resilience when a threat occurs.
Furthermore, group cohesiveness can accelerate the processes of decision-making. Members of cohesive groups usually participate in effective debates, express various views, and thus arrive at more comprehensive studies and balanced resolutions (Bravo et al., 2019). The benefit of this diversity of thought is that it is vital for innovation and problem-solving because it prevents groupthink and stimulates creativity
The Limitations of Group Cohesiveness
Despite those apparent advantages, too much focus on group cohesiveness may have negative results. Excessively tight groups can compromise critical thinking by putting conformity first, potentially potentiating opinions and hindering innovation. Maintaining the group cohesion often leads to the suppression of the constructive conflict and complacency, which consequently retards the growth and progress. Furthermore, group cohesiveness may intensify the in-group tendencies and cliques, causing outsiders to be alienated and diverse and inclusive efforts to be hindered (Michaelsen et al., 2023). Past the point where cohesion is preferred to diversity, teams risk turning into homogeneous echo chambers just repeating the existing biases without any innovation and adaptability.
The group cohesiveness may often cause individual autonomy and creativity to be harmed. The cohesive groups, which are very united, are at the risk of giving more consideration to unanimity over individual autonomy, leading to the curtailing of independent thoughts and initiative. This condition can slow down the birth of new ideas and the development of leadership qualities among the team members. Group cohesiveness also involves multiple contextual factors like organizational culture, leadership style, and task characteristics. What has the potential to unify in one context may split people in another one (Braun, 2020). Thus, a universal one-size-fits-all strategy for accomplishing group cohesiveness is inapplicable and implausible.
Conclusion
In conclusion, group cohesiveness promotes collaboration, trust, and morale. However, its outcome factors determine the outcomes of groups to foster a climate of belongingness and solidarity among the team members without necessarily sacrificing the team’s well-being. Leadership, which is effective char, is characterized by the ability to achieve a balance between promoting teamwork and causing individualism, autonomy, and critical thinking. By understanding the intricacies of group dynamics and appraising their approach respectively, the leaders can use the potential of group cohesion to their benefit while keeping the drawbacks in check. Ultimately, this will create a culture of innovation, inclusivity, and resilience within the team.
References
Braun, M. T., Kozlowski, S. W., Brown, T. A., & DeShon, R. P. (2020). Exploring the dynamic team cohesion–performance and coordination–performance relationships of newly formed teams. Small Group Research, 51(5), 551-580. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1046496420907157
Bravo, R., Catalán, S., & Pina, J. M. (2019). Analyzing teamwork in higher education: An empirical study on the antecedents and consequences of team cohesiveness. Studies in Higher Education, 44(7), 1153-1165. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03075079.2017.1420049
Fonseca, X., Lukosch, S., & Brazier, F. (2019). Social cohesion revisited: a new definition and how to characterize it. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 32(2), 231-253. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13511610.2018.1497480
Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (Eds.). (2023). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_A7JEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=The+Merits+of+Group+Cohesiveness&ots=frnWczXc9M&sig=l2BZFvzFGGhona4AhgfmY30jUUA
Mutonyi, B. R., Slåtten, T., & Lien, G. (2020). Empowering leadership, work group cohesiveness, individual learning orientation and individual innovative behaviour in the public sector: empirical evidence from Norway. International Journal of Public Leadership, 16(2), 175-197. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJPL-07-2019-0045/full/html
write