- .: FUfL- COP Y

ARI Research Note 90-133

Cohesion Research: Conceptualand Methodological Issues

0 Laurel W. Oliver0 U.S. Army Research Institute

00NN

DTICJI•EECTE r

Office of Basic Research I.25 0Michael Kaplan, Director CT 2 9

September 1990

c".10- jgqt

United States ArmyResearch Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Approved for public rules.e; distrlbution is unlimited.

90 10 2;3 166S.. .. .. . . .i . .. . . . .. . .. .. ... ... .. ., . .. .. . . . . .. ... . . . ..il. . . . . . . . . . .I . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . . ...... . .. .. ... i

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTEFOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency Under the Jurisdictionof the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

EDGAR M. JOHNSON JON W. BLADESTechnical Director COL, IN

Commanding

Technicai review by

Michael DrillingsWilliam W. Haythom

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: This report has been cleared for release to the Defense Technical InformationCenter (DTIC) to comply with regulatory requirements. It has been given no primary distributionother than to DTIC and will be available only through DTIC or the National TechnicalInformation Service (NTIS).

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do notreturn it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The views, opinions, and findings in this report are those of rte author(s) and should notbe constried as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless sodesignated by other authorized documents.

Form ApprovedREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMBCNo. 0704-018

la. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGSUnclassified"2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

2b. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE Approved for public release;dis;tribution is unlimited.

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5, MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

ARI Research Note 90-1336a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7&. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION(if applicable)

U.S. Army Research Institute -- U.S. Army Research Institute

Sc. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)5001 Eisenhower Avenue 5001 Eisenhower AvenueAlexandria, VA 22333-5600 Alexandria, VA 22333-5600Ba. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING Bb. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

O11GANIZArIONU. S. Army R.csuarcb (if applicable)Istitute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences PERI-BR --8c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS

PROGRAM PROJECT 'TASK WORK UNIT5001 Eisenhower Avenue ELEMENT NO. NO. NO. ACCESSION NO.Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 61102B 74F N/A N/A11. TITLE (include Security Classification)

Cohesion Research: Conceptual and Methodological Issues

12, PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)Oliver, Laurel W.13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Oay) 1S. PAGE COUNTFinal FROM 86/01 TO87/12 1990, September 2716. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

This report was written as part of an Intra-Laboratory Individual Research (ILIR) project.

17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse If necessary Mnd Identify by block number)FIELD GROUP SUB.GROUP Group cohesion Social psychology

Cohesion measurement ForecastingDatabase

19, ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necesiary and Identify by block number)S A quantitative integration of the cohesion-performance research involving real world

groups (Oliver, 1987) revealed a number of issues that made the interpretation of that re-search problematic. This paper discusses some of these conceptual and methodological issuesand offers recommendations based on the issues. Recommendations call for a consensus on adefinition of cohesion as well as on a differentiation of cohesion from other constructsand establishment of a database of cohesion instruments. Specific suggestions are givenfor developing psychometrically sound cohesion measures. Also strongly urged is the iden-tification of related variables and the delineation of their interrelationships, particu-larly the cohesion-performance relationships. Guidelines are presentVd for reporting ofresearch resul... . p" / . ,

20. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATIONr3UNCLASSIFIEW/UNLIMITED 0 SAME AS RPT. E-- DTIC USERS Unclassified

22a. NAME OF RESPONSI.LE INDIVIDUAL 22b. rELEPHONE (include Area Code) 22c OFFICE SYMBOLLaurel W. Oti.,er (202) 274-8722 PERI-BRDO Form 1473, JUN 86 Previous editions are obiolete, SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

UNCLASSIFIED

FOREWORD

Over the past several years, group cohesion has becomeincreasingly important to the Army. Increased interest in thetcQpic has led to additional research in the area. A part of therecent research effort involved a quantitative integration of thecohesion-performance research that employed real world groups andcontained empirical data. This report discusses a number of is-sues encountered in the process of integrating that subset ofcohesion-performance literature. The recommendations containguidelines for improving the quality of cohesion research andprovide guidance for those seeking to implement researchfindings.

Acoeslon lor

DTIC TO QUaamnaouned 0Justification

AvaLlabuity WONo.Aval M i ....Mat ftestal

-'0o

COHESION RESEARCH: CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

Requirement:

The phenomenon of group cohesion is of great interest to theArmy as it is viewed as a group characteristic that is, to alarge extent, under the control of leaders and also positivelylinked to unit performance. Over the years, there have been anumber of research efforts that investigated the relationship ofcohesion and performance in real world groups--e.g., industrialwork groups, military units, and sports teams. A recent attemptto integrate this subset of the cohesion research using a quanti-tative approach (Oliver, 1977) revealed a number of problems.Guidance is needed both for those conducting such research in thefuture and for those seeking to apply the results of the cohesionresearch. This report reviews a number of issues related to co-hesion research in real world groups and presents recommendationsthat emerge from a consideration of the issues.

Procedure:

The cohesion-performance research reviewed for a quantita-tive integration of the literature was examined to determine theareas that made the interpretation of the results of the researchproblematic. The author identified conceptual and methodologicalproblems and developed recommendations to resolve the problems.

Findings:

Cohesion researchers have not agreed on a definition ofcohesion, nor have they clearly delineated it from related con-structs. Construct validity, always difficult to demonstrate forabstract concepts, has not been established. Inspection of theresearch revealed a number of methodological shortcomings, someof which concerned instrument develcoment. Others related toresearch design and analysis. Severe deficiencies in researchreporting were also encountered. Recommendations called for aconsensus on a definition of cohesion and 4.ts differentiationfrom related constructs. Establishing a database of cohesioninstruments was also recommended. Specific suggestions weregiven for devploping psychometrically sound measures of cohesion.Also strongly urged was the identification of related variables--antecedent, concnmitant, and conscqucnL---anr the delneatlnn uf

V

the relationships among cohesion and other variables. Consideredof particular importance was an understanding of the cohesion-performance relationship. Guidelines were presented for the com-plete reporting of research results.

UtlIzattion of Findings:

The recommendations contained in this report provide re-searchers with guidelines for improving the quality of cohesionresearch. The recommendations also provide guidance to thoseseeking to implement research findings.

vi

COHESION RESEARCH: CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

Page

INTRODUCTION .................... ... ........................ 1

Background ....................... ........................ 1Problem ...................... ......................... .IPurpose of Paper ................... ..................... 2

CONCEPTUAL ISSUES ................... ...................... 2

Definitions of Cohesion ................. 2Confusion of Cohesion with Related Constructs ...... ...... 5Identification of Antecedents, Concomitants,

and Consequences .................. ................... 7

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES ................. .................... 8

Difficulty of Establishing Construct Validity .... ...... 8flack of Methodological Rigor in Development

of Cohesion Measures ...... ........ ................. 9Problems in Research Design and Analysis ............... 9Deficiencies in Research Reporting ........... .......... ii

RECOMMENDATIONS ............... ....................... .. 12

CONCLUDING REMARKS .................. ..................... 15

REFERENCES .................... ........................ 17

vii

Cohesion Research: COnceptual an Methodological Issues

INTRODUCTION

Background

During the past few years, the phenomenon of group cohesionhas played an increasingly important role in the Arpy's view ofleadership and mission accomplishment. The concern aboutcohesion and its presumed contribution to military readiness hasled to more research attention to the phenomenon. Cohesion, or"group cohesiveness," as it has generally been called in thesocial-psychological literature, has been the focus ofconsiderable research. Most of this research comprisedlaboratory studies with subjects formed into groups for thepurpose of the investigation. Some of the cohesion research,however, involved real world groups--e.g., military units,industrial work groups, and sports teams.

Pr9klgm

As Bednar and Kaul (1978) noted almost a decade ago, "thereis little cohesion in the cohesion research" (p. 800). Althoughthe rather sizable research literature on cohesion has beensommarized and reviewed from time to time (e.g., Bass, 1981;Cartwright, 1968; Hare, 1976; Ivancevich, Szilagyi, & Wallace,1977; Lott & Lott, 1965), no quantitative research integration ofthe literature had been accomplished. Using a meta-analyticapproach, Oliver (1987a) recently completed an attempt tointegrate that subset of the cohesion literature which utilizedreal world groups.' In the process of conducting this researchintegration effort, the author encountered a number of issueswhich made interpretation of the cohesion research problematic.

'It should be noted that in the recent past additionalresearch effort has been expended in the area of militarycohesion. Very little of this work was available to the authorduring the accumulation of research reports for the aeta-analysis. The findings of this paper are based on the studiesavailable at that time. Subsequent work by Siebold (1987, April;1987, August) has attempted to address some of the issuesdiscussed in this report. See also recent papers by Griffith(1986, August: 1987, August: undated), who has discussedconceptual and measurement problems in the cohesion research,and the background paper on military cohesion by Devilbiss(1987).

LM1

Accordingly, this paper will identify some of the issuesthat emerged from the meta-analysis and which should be addressedin efforts to construct or identify cohesion measures and to usethose measures for cohesion research involving real world groups.These iisues include several conceptual and methodologicalproblems, almost all of which have been previously discussedsomewhere in the literature. An additional purpose of the paperis to make some specific recommendations that result from aconsideration of the issues discussed.

CONCEPTUAL ISSUES

Definitions of Cohesion

The conceptual issues which emerge from a review ofthe cohesion literature relate to definitional problems--definitions of cohesion and related constructs and to theirinterrelationships. One of the major difficulties encountered inthe cohesion research lies in the many ways in which theconstruct of "cohesion" or "group cohesiveness" has been defined.The traditional definitions originated in the social-psychological research on small groups. The definitions ofmilitary cohesion, which tend to be related to Etzioni's (1975)conceptualization of the concept, differ somewhat from thetraditional definitions.

In his book written over three decades ago, Seashore (1954)contrasted the two principal lines of inquiry in cohesionresearch. One of those research directions involved small groupsand their processes. The other type of research involvedindustrial work groups and emphasized morale and productivity.

11 • g cohesiveness. In the social-psychologicalresearch tradition, Festinger's (1950) definition of cohesivenesshas perhaps been the most frequently quoted: "the resultant ofall the forces acting upon the members to remain in the group"(p. 274). Thus, attractiveness of the group to the members tendsto be the core of many definitions of this construct. Lott andLott (1965) refer in the title of their literature review tocohesiveness as interpersonal attraction and go on to define theconstruct as "that group property which is inferred from thenumber and strength of mutual positive attitudes among themembers of a group" (p. 259). Bass (1981) noted Shaw's threedefinitions of group cohesion: member attraction to group, levelof group morale, and coordination attitudes among group members(p. 424). Bass (1981) also cited Stogdill's definition ofcohesion as members' reinforcement of each others' expectationsof the value of maintaining group identity (p. 424). Ivancevich,Szilagyi, and Wallace (1977) defined cohesiveness as an

2

"atmosphere of closeness, or common attitudes, behavior, andperformance" (p. 216). Deutsch (1968) asserted that it was"intuitively clear that cohesiveness refers to the forces which.bind the parts of a group together and which thus resistdisruptive influences" (p. 467). The English and English (1958)dictionary of psychological and psychoanalytical terms gives fourdefinitions for "cohesion/group cohesiveness": the overallattraction a group has for its members, the total field ofexternal and internal forces which tend to keep the group intact,the feeling of belongingness on the part of the group members,and group morale (p. 94). More recently, Piper, Marrache,Lacroix, Richardsen, and Jones (1983) have defined cohesion as "abasic bond or uniting force" (p. 95). These authors suggestedthat several bonds may exist in a group: between m•embers,between a member and a leader, and between a member and "hisconception of the group as a whole" (Piper et al., 1983, p. 95).

Work group cohesion. Some of the cohesion research hasinvolved work groups. Price and Mueller (1986) have defined workgroup cohesion as the "extent to which employees have closefriends in their immediate work units" (p. 250)--aconceptualization that equatew to interpersonal attraction and isvery similar to the Lott and Lott (1965) definition quoted above.Although most of the research on work group cohesion involvedindustrial settings (e.g., Seashore, 1954), Blau's (1963) worktook place in a bureaucratic setting. Much of the work groupcohesion research was accomplished some years ago and employedsociometric measures of cohesion.

Sports teag cohesion. Carron (1982) and Carron andChelladurai (1982) have investigated the role of cohesion in thefunctioning of sports teams. Carron (1982) has asserted thatthere are two predominant sets of processes operating in workgroups: processes related to the development of socialrelationships and processes related to the achievement of groupgoals. Along this line, Mikalachki (1969) has suggested cohesioncomprises the two components of task cohesion and socialcohesion.

Etziloni's definition of cohesion. In his book on complexorganizations, Etzioni (1975) has defined cohesion as "a positiveexpressive relationship among two or more actors" (p. 280). Hehas specifically stated that this definition does not implyshared goals or values, which he equates to "consensus ornormative integration," because to use the term in the broadersense converts the "definition" to a "proposition." That is,incorporating shared goals and values into the definition makesthe assumption that cohesion and the shared goals are positivelycorrelated and "change in an associated way." Etzionl (1975)referred to "peer cohesion whenever the bond links actors of thesame rank" and to "hierarchial cohesion when the bond links

3

actors of a different rank" (p. 281). I quote Etzioni's ownwords liberally here since there has been some confusion abouthis definition of cohesion. Hedlund and Yoest (1984), forexample, have attributed a third facet of cohesion, "personalintegration" (congruence of individual and organizational goals)to Etzioni. Etzioni (1975), however, has been quite clear thathis definition does not include shared values or goals because hebelieves that defining cohesion as involving both "socialintegration or solidarity and ... consensus or normativeintegration blurs a valuable distinction" (p. 280).

Military cohesion. For some authors, "military cohesion"differs from the construct of "cohesion" or "cohesiyeness"discussed above. In a report documenting the conclusions of theAction Planning Group on Cohesiveness, military cohesiveness wasdefined as "the result of forces acting on soldiers that attractand bind them together producing commitment to other unit membersand the unit as a whole to accomplish unit missions" (Day,Jacobs, Clement, & Johns, 1979, p. 13). Griffith and Chopper(1986) have offered a definition of military unit cohesion whichhas three aspects: horizontal cohesion, vertical cohesion, andcommitment. Another definition to be noted is the one containedin the Dictionary of United States Army Terms (Department of theArmy, 1986). This document defines "unit cohesion" as the"result of controlled, interactive forces that lead to solidaritywithin military units, directing the soldiers toward common goalswith an express commitment to one another and to the unit as awhole" (p. 174).

Some recent work concerning military cohesion also addressesthe definitional issue. Siebold and Kelly (1987, May) havedefined cohesion in terms of three types of bonding--horizontal,vertical, and organizational. These authors have furtherdifferentiated each kind of bonding into affective andinstrumental subtypes. In an examination of the potential ofcohesion as a technique to enhance human performance in the Army,Druckman and Swets (1988) have defined several pertinent terms:"Group beoioe refers to the member's relation to his or herimmediate (small) unit. Organizational-commitment refers to themember's relation to the larger organization, which includes hisor her own as well as other units. Cohesion refers to themember's relation to both the immediate unit (peers and leaders)and the larger organization of which the immediate unit is apart" (Druckman & Swets, 1988, p. 151).

AUMMjya gf construct-definitions. The definitions ofcohesion presented above do not constitute an exhaustive list,but they are representative. The notion of forces acting ongroup members to remain in the group is a common theme,as is the equating of cohesion with interpersonal attraction.The dimensions of peer and hierarchial cohesion are incorporated

4

into several definitions (e.g., Etzioni, 19751 Piper et al.,1983). In addition to horizontal bonding and vertical bonding,Piper et al. (1983) included bonding to the group as a whole in,their conceptualization of cohesion. Although some authors(e.g., Ivancevich et al., 1977) include communalities ofattitudes and behaviors as part of the cohesion definition,Etzioni (1975) has specifically excluded the "consensus" aspectof shared goals or values from his definition. The definitionsof military cohesion, on the other hand, include commitmentand/or shared goals as an integral part of the constructdefinition (e.g., Devilbiss, 1987). The definition found in theDictionary of United States Army Terms differs from all the otherdefinitions of cohesion in that it defines the concept by aprescription of the means to effect the phenomenon '("controlled,interactive forces") although it does not define what thoseforces are. Mikalachki's (1969) notion that work group cohesioncomprises the two components of social cohesion and task cohesionbrings a slightly different, but related, perspective to theconceptualization of cohesion.

Author's view. It is the opinion of the author thatEtzioni's (1975) conceptualization of peer and hierarchialcohesion encompasses a variety of concepts such as "forces actingon group members," "interpersonal attraction," "mutual positiveattitudes," "group identity," and the like. However, it has beennoted (e.g., Dees & Origer, 1987; Hackman, 1976) that whilemembers of highly cohesive groups may have strong allegiance tovalues and goals, these may or may not correspond to the valuesand goals of the organization. If this congruence is lacking,cohesion can be dysfunctional for the organization. One can viewthe congruence of personal and organizational goals as amoderator variable which affects group performance differentiallydepending upon the degree to which such congruence exists. Itseems more parsimonious to this author to restrict the definitionof group cohesion to horizontal and vertical cohesion (and,perhaps, to the group as a whole) and to deal with commitment toorganizational goals as a moderator variable. One can argue, ofcourse, that a conceptualization involving only peer andhierarchial cohesion mer ly defines group cohesion and notspecifically military or military unit cohesion.

Confusion of Cohesiqn with Pelated Constructs

As indicated above, the conceptualization of cohesion has aconfused history. While the various definitions generallyincorporate some notion of group stick-togetherness, it is notclear how these definitions relate to other, similar constructs.Examples of some related constructs are morale, esprit de corps,motivation, commitment, solidarity, climate, and culture. Thereis surprisingly little discussion in the literature concerningthe extent to which the cohesion construct includes, coincideswith, is contained within, or overlaps related constructs. It

5

can be argued that some of these constructs are essentially thesame thing. "a discussing the characteristics of research ongroups, Zander (1979) noted that synonyms often exist for groupphenomena such as a member's desire to remain in a group. Heobserved, "Researchers in group life are remarkably inventive increating new names for phenomena that already have a name"(Zander, 1979, p. 424).

Although these various constructs have similarities, theymay also have unique connotations. Morale, for example,implies a confident and courageous perseverance in the work ofthe group, particularly under stressful conditions. Esprit decorps has traditionally meant an enthusiastic spirit of loyaltyto a group (originally, a military one), especially, with regardto the honor and interests of that group as opposed to others.The term motivation implis3 goal-directed behavior. Inorganizations, leaders are supposed to "motivato" theirsubordinates--presumably toward accomplishing the goals of theorganization. Commitment has the connotation of being obligatedor bound to something, be it people (peers or leaders) or ideals(group values or norms). Commitment was defined by Price andMueller (1986) as "loyalty to the organization" (p. 70). And soon.

Some authors have attempted to clarify the relationshipsanong cohesion and related constructs and to indicate how thevarious constructs have bewn addressed in the researchliterature. Hare (1976) maintained that morale and cohesivenesshave been used interchangeably. Motowidlo and Borman (1978) haveviewed cohesion, along with satisfaction and motivation, aselements of morale. Climate surveys may include cohesion scalesin their instruments (e.g., the peer cohesion scale of Moos,1986). Griffith and Chopper (1986) incorporated commitment as anelement of their definition of cohesion (along with horizontaland vertical bonding). Although Etzioni (1975) has equatedcohesion with solidarity (see quotations in preceding section),bilau (1963) has viewed solidarity as a broader concept thancohesion. Thus there is no consensus among authorities on howcohesion relates to a variety of other similar constructs.

Even though the various constructs seem to have slightlydifferent connotations, operationally they are generallyindistinguishable from cohesion. The esprit de corps measure ofBauer, Stout, and Holz (1977), for example, consists of peerbonding items which are highly similar to those identified as a"cohesion-cooperation" factor emerging from the factor analysisreported by Olson and Borman (1987).

Climate and culture are broader in scope than are constructssuch as cohesion and morale. Schneider and Reichers (1983) haveheld that work settings can have a variety of climates. Thusthere can be a climate for safety, a climate for innovation, a

6

..... ...i .. . ........ . . .. . . . . .

climate for achievement, or any combination of these and otherclimates. In military settings, one could speak of a "commandclimate" or a "climate for mission accomplishment." Thus it isprobable that cohesion might be a necessary, if not a sufficient,condition, for mission accomplishment--i.e., to fight and wineven under adverse or deteriorating circumstances.

Although Schneider (1985) noted that climate and culturehave often been used interchangeably, he differentiated the two.Most people mean "social climate" (interpersonal practices) whenthey refer to climate. But Schneider (1985) has asserted thatclimate research aJ-'n includes the "formal and informal policiesand procedures that reward [and) support.... safety...innovation"and the like (p. 595). Culture research, on the otAer hand,would involve investigations of organizational norms and valuesystems that underlie the policies and procedures that lead to aspecific climate (Schein, 1985). Research methodologies alsodiffer for these two approaches. Culture research tends to bequalitative in nature, often using a case study approach, whileclimate research typically employs survey methodology.

Identification of Antecedents. Concomitants. and Conseguences

In addition to the related constructs discussed above, thereare a host of other variables which are scattered throughout theliterature on the cohesion of real world groups. Researchershave postulated a relationship between cohesion and suchvariables as leadership style (Blades, 1986), job satisfaction(Downey, Duffy, & Shiflett, 1975), performance (Goodacre, 1951),turnover (Goodacre, 1953), self-esteem (Keller, 1987),reenlistment (Moos, 1986), demographic factors (Nelson & Berry,1968), subordinate role clarity (Schriesheim, 1980), and groupsize (Keller, 1987).

Although many such variables have been investigated, therehave been only a few (sometimes only one or two) studies on eachvariable. Thus the findings have not been definitive. It isdifficult to determine which of these variables are antecedents,concomitants, or consequences of cohesion. With respect tocausality, some authors have suggested a reciprocal relationshipmay be involved between cohesion and other variables such asperformance (e.g., Cartwright, 1968; Deutsch, 1968; Oliver,1987a). There is also some empirical evidence (Bakeman &Helmreich, 1975) that high performance may lead to higher levelsof cohesion, rather than the reverse. In any event, theinterrelationships among cohesion and these other variables havenot been established.

7

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

In actuality, a discussion of the conceptual issuesconcerning cohesion research cannot be neatly separated from aconsideration of the methodological issues encountered in theresearch. The definition of a construct directly affects theconstruction of measures of that construct. Hence 'conceptualization and operationalization are two intertwinedaspects of research on psychological constructs. The sectionwhich follows begins with a discussion of construct validity andits role in cohesion research and then proceeds to theconsideration of several specific methodological problems.

Difficulty of EstablishinQ Construct Validitv

The difficulty of validating a psychological variable isrelated to its degree of abstractness. In fact, Nunnally (1978)has said that the degree to which "it is necessary and difficultto validate measures of psychological variables is proportionalto the degree to which the variable is concrete or abstract" (p.95). Thus, reaction time is relatively easy to measure in waysscientists can agree upon, while variables such as intelligenceor cohesion pose a much more difficult measurement problem.

Nunnally (1978) has defined a construct as an abstractrather than a concrete variable. Thus constructs such as"cohesion" cannot be observed directly. Instead, one must inferthe presence of the construct by observing responses to items ona questionnaire ("A high degree of cooperation exists amongmembers of my work group") or observing overt behaviors that onehas postulated are manifestations of the construct ("Members ofthe squad did not leave the area after returning from the fielduntil everyone's equipment was cleaned and put away").

After an instrument has been constructed, one needs to•-w-•ne whether it does in fact measure what it is supposed

to measure. The literature indicates that construct validityis the most logical type of validity to establish for a measureof cohesion. Other types of validity are more appropriate forother purposes (Nunnally, 1978) .

2Researchers who wish to use a "cohesion" measure as apredictor of, say, performance are of course not dealing withconstruct validity. Demonstrating that increasing a group's meancohesion score by a given number of points is associated with anincrease of so many units in group performance establishes thepredictive validity of the measure but not its constructvalidity. The measure may be predictive, but evidence that it isa measure of cohesion is not conclusively demonstrated.

S ....-- 11 I ,8

As Nunnally (1978) has pointed out, construct validationis a much more complex procedure than are other types ofvalidation. Establishing construct validity requires muchcareful thought, considerable imagination, and multiple attempts.Psychometric procedures such as factor analysis and Campbell andFiske's (1959) multitrait-multimethod matrix procedure can beemployed to help establish construct validity. Newer techniques,such as structural equation modeling (Bentler, 1980) might alsohave applications in such validation efforts.

The author wishes to make the point here that establishingthe validity of constructs is no trivial task. The difficultiesof construct validation are probably to blame for the fact thatsuch validation has been imperfectly accomplished in muchresearch, including cohesion research.Lack of MethodoloagIcl Ro i D lopment of Cohesion Measure.

The conceptual confusion surrounding the definition ofcohesion and related constructs complicates the construction ofcohesion measures. Some authors do not even attempt to definecohesion. Those researchers who do define cohesion do sodifferently and operationalize it in a variety of ways, and theirdescriptions of the operationalization process are often lacking.Research reports on the construction of cohesion questionnaires,for example, typically contain inadequate information on thedevelopment of the item pool. Those researchers who do indicatethe sources of items usually do not specify clearly which itemaicame from which source and how the items were changed.

Good research procedure requires that instruments be pilottested after items have been selected. Although such pilottesting is occasionally reported, authors rarely specify in anydetail the problems encountered and the steps taken to overcomethe difficulties. And while there have been some exceptions(e.g., Griffith & Chopper, 1986; Moos, 1986), most cohesionresearchers have not reported reliability and validity data.

Another type of information that would be helpful to usersof survey measures is the reading difficulty of the instrument.Given the literacy problems sometimes encountered among bluecollar workers and military personnel, it would seem importantfor researchers to ascertain how understandable the measure is tothe population for which it is designed.

Problems in Research Design and Analysis

A~greation of individual responses. Cohesion researchpresents an interesting paradox. Cohesion is presumably a groupcharacteristic, yet it is almost always measured by summing oraveraging individual responses. Not only that, but the criterionmeasures are also often based on individual data. (An exception

9

is the number of games won/lost by sporto teams.) Although someauthors (e.g., Griffith & Chopper, 1986; Nieva, Fleishman, Rieck,& Strasel, 1985) have drawn attention to the incongruity ofaggregating individual responses to obtain measures of groupcharacteristics, the issue has not received much attention todate. Clearly, two groups could have the same mean on a cohesionmeasure yet differ greatly from each other if one group has avery small dispersion around the mean and the scores of the othergroup are characterized by a large variance.

Level of analysis. Aggregation poses a serious problem insocial science research when one considers the level of analysisissue. It is important for res&archers to consider carefully thelevel of analysis they are investigating and why. Since one canobtain disparate results from the same measure aggregated at twodifferent levels, it is essential that the rationale forcollecting data at a given level is clear and defensible.

.As just noted, in cohesion research the level of analysis problemis further complicated by the fact that individual level data areoften used to assess a group phenomenon.

In a discussion of the etiology of climates, Schneider andReichers (1983) have commented on the aggregation problem. Theyasked how, when aggregating employee responses to questions aboutpolicies and procedures, the researcher can decide which group ofemployees should be chosen to represent a social unit. Theanswer to this question was that it depends "upon the uses towhich the data will be put and the way in which the survey itemsare worded" (Schneider & Reichers, 1983, p. 24). If, for example,a researcher is investigating the climate for supportivesupervision across work groups, the appropriate unit of analysiswould be the work group.

Criterion problen. The criterion problem has, of course,bedeviled psychologists and others for many decades. In the

•:t~ c ohesion research, one of the principal difficultieslies in the measurement of performance. The recent report by theCommittee on Techniques for Enhancing Human Performance (Druckman& Swets, 1988) has emphasized the need to establish an empiricallink between cohesion and performance. A search of the cohesion-performance literature (Oliver, 1987a) resulted in only a handfulof studies suitable for quantitative integration. Although anumber of cohesion studies were rejected because of inadequateresearch reporting, others could not be used because they did notexamine measures of performance or organizational effectiveness.

The aggregation problem mentioned above in relation to themeasurement of cohesion also occurs in conjunction with criterionmeasures. Cohesion is a group phenomenon. Thus, it can beargued, a criterion for cohesion should be a performance measureof the group as an entity. As mentioned previously, the numberof games won/lost by a team would be such a measure. Another

10

example would be a group's score on a military field trainingexercise. Nieva et al. (1985) pointed out that "Much effort hasbeen devoted to conceptualizing and operationalizing the variousfactors that affect group performance, without a parallel levelof effort devoted to understanding the basic question, what isgroup performance" (p. 48). These authors also noted that "groupperformance" in the literature has sometimes been merelyindividual performance in a group setting.

Deficiencies in Research ReDortina

Many research integrators have discovered that the datareported by researchers in their reports and articles arefrequently incomplete. A number of authors have commentedon this problem of inadequate reporting (e.g., Green & Hall,1984; Jackson, 1980; Orwin & Cordray, 1985). Light and Pillemer(1984) asserted that the inadequacy of research reporting is"surprising" and that some might wish to "change the wordsurprising to shocking" (p. 101). After encountering significantdifficulties in integrating the career counseling outcomeliterature, Oliver and Spokane (2983) described the problem ofinadequate research reporting and suggested guidelines for suchreporting. In the recent past, editors have begun to acknowledgethe problem and to require that authors include in theirmanuscripts all data needed for meta-analytic research reviews(e.g., Beyer, 1985).

Thus it was not unexpected to discover that the cohesionresearch literature also contained examples of inadequateresearch reporting. Missing data constitute a severe problem forthe research integrator. Although one might expect everyresearcher to report means, standard deviations, correlationcoefficients, and n., such is not the case. Incompletedescriptions of samples, interventions, and measures poseproblems both for research integrators and for those seeking toapply the findings of a study or group of studies.

In the area of cohesion research, there are few standardizedinstruments such as exist for other constructs such asintelligence or career maturity. Cohesion researchers often donot describe their instruments well. 0 This lack of informationcan be due to the fact that the researcher has not carefullythought out what it is he or she wishes to measure and has notgone about constructing the instrument in a systematic fashion.Frequently there =re no reliability and validity data to report.

Deficiencies of reporting in the cohesion literature pose aproblem not only for research integrators but also for

3The Military Environment Inventory developed by Moos (1986)

is an exception.

11

researchers who wish to build upon previous work as well asthose who wish to apply cohesion findings in their ownsituations. Thus reporting deficiencies in the literatureimpair both the development of new kncwledge and the applicationof what has already been discovered.

RECOENDATIONS

As Piper at al. (1983) have stated, "Despite its heraldedimportance, cohesion is a concept with significant problems"(p. 94). The preceding discussion of the conceptual andmethodological issues associated with cohesion research on realworld groups described some of those problems. Tho intent ofthis section is to offer recommendations which stem from thediscussion of those issues. If these recommendations were to befollowed, the author believes cohesion research could lead toenhanced functioning of real world groups.

Recommendation Ng. 1: Define Cohesion in Specific.Multidimensional Terms. There is a certain amount of agreement(see Carron, 1982) that the cohesion construct is amultidimensional one. Hence the interpersonal attractiondefinition of the earlier small group research (e.g., Lott&Lott, 1965) may be too limited for applications in real worldgroups who are working together on meaningful tasks. Etzioni's(1975) notion of peer and hierarchial cohesion has a logicalappeal and has also been operationalized in several instruments(e.g., Griffith and Chopper, 1986, and Moos, 1986). Researchersmight also want to consider the possibility of examining bothsocial cohesion and task cohesion as suggested by Mikilachki(1969). As noted earlier in this paper, definitions of militarycohesion have generally included an organizationalcommitment/goals congruence component. Hence a decision must bemade about whether to include such an element as part of thedefinition or whether to incorporate it into the research designd a moderator variable. In this author's opinion, horizontaland vertical cohesion involve interpersonal processes.Organizational commitment does not. Hence one can argue thatconceptually commitment is a different variable. It should alsobe noted that some authors (e.g., Hackman, 1976s Hare, 1976) havenoted that high cohesion may be dysfunctional for theorganization--as when cohesive work groups restrict theirproduction. In any event, specific definition will facilitatethe operationalization of the construct.

Recommendation No. 2: Differentiate Cohesion from Relatedonstructs. As noted earlier, cohesion has been used

interchangeably with related constructs such as morale and espritde corps. Consensus (or at least some agreement) needs to bereached among cohesion researchers on definitions of bothcohesion and related construutu. In addition, the relationships

12

among the various constructs need to be specified. There aresome theoretical formulations which already exist in theliterature. For example, some years ago, Motowidlo and Borman(1978) proposed that morale comprises cohesion, satisfaction, andmotivation. More recently, Borman, Motowidlo, Rose, and Hanser(1987) have conceptualized climate as including organizationalcommitment, organizational socialization, and morale. Using aframework such as this, which already has some research basis,would clarify the role of cohesion among other organizationalcharacteristics and processes.

Recommendation NO. 3: Develop a Database of CohesionInstrumnts. Given the difficulty of locating cohesion measures,procedures need to be developed for assembling and paintaining acollection of such measures. Am an example, the Army ResearchInstitute (ARI) has a copy of every instrument assigned a PT("psychological test") number by ARI. Reports relating to thoseinstrument are supposedly available from the Defense TechnicalInformation Center (DTIC). However, retrieving these instrumentsand the relevant reports is not an easy task if one does not knowthe dates, authors, or report titles.

Accordingly, the author suggests that ARI or some otherresearch organization set up a computer database of instrumentsthat are relevant to cohesion and perhaps other behavioralscience research areas. This database could contain theinstruments themselves plus the titles of reports, articles,papers, etc. that pertain to the instruments. The database mightalso contain summaries of the reliability and validity data foreach instrument, where and how the instrument has been used, andpoints of contact for information about the instrument (whenappropriate). Adaptations of original instruments need to beidentified as such, with the same types of information availablefor the adapted measures.

Recommendation No. 4:0. Usa Psychometrically Sound Cohesion-. When possible, researchers should use or adaptcohesion measures that have already been developed. Measures ofdemonstrated reliability and validity will accelerate the conductof one's research. Even when measures must be modified, time isoften saved. In developing (or modifying) measures, soundmethodological procedures need to be followed: precisedefinition of the cohesion construct, careful operationalizationby 13nking the measure to the definition, pilot testing of themeasure, establishing reliability and validity of the instrument,checking reading difficulty, etc. For example, climate measuressometimes contain cohesion scales. The researcher may wish toconsider one of these instruments. Not only does one obtain ameasure of cohesion, but one also secures data on other variableswhich may be of interest.

13

Recommendation No.__l__Delineate the Relationshi QatotherVariables to Cohesion. It is important to identify antecedent,consequent, and moderator variables related to cohesion and tostudy their interrelationships in real world settings. Therehave been relatively few empirical studies which attempted tolink cohesion to meaningful measures of performance. Druckmanand Swats (1988) noted the paucity of such data and urged thatmore attention be directed toward the cohesion-performancerelationship.

Even if (as the anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests)cohesion and performance are found to be positively andsignificantly related, it cannot be assumed that cohesionenhances performance. As noted earlier in this paper, areciprocal relationship may be involved. Hence the relationshipof cohesion to factors such as training and leadership practicesneeds to be investigated to enhance our understanding of howcohesion and other variables cause, are caused by, and interactwith each other.

Since cohesion has sometimes been dysfunctional furorganizations (Seashore, 1954), it would be important toinvestigate those variables associated with such dysfunction.The groupthink mentality identified by Janis (1977) in hisanalysis of the decision-making process leading to the Bay ofPigs dobacle can be attributed to a reluctance to proposealternatives that differed from what participants perceived thegroup asma whole wanted. The lesser cohesion may be of benefitto organizations. Doss and Origer (1987) cite studies in whichhigh levels of disagreement within top management were related tohigh levels of organizational performance. The possibilityexists that a curvilinear relationship may exist between cohesionand organizational effectiveness, but convincing empiricalevidence of such a relationship is lacking.

Recommendation No. G. Report-Research Completely. As theCuWkior hds emphasized elsewhere (Oliver, 1987b), it is essentialthat behavioral science research be completely reported.Complete reporting involvcs presenting data for all variables andfor all groups: means, standard deviations, correlationcoefficients, exact values and exact probability levels forstatistical tests, and adequate descriptions of subjects,instruments, and procedures. Many cohesion studies have failedto report these basic data.

To ensure that research reporting is complete is theresponsibility of authors, reviewers, and editors. Authors are,of course, primarily responsible. But authors are frequently soclose to their data that they may need help in detectingomissions in their reporting. Thus it is important for reviewers

14

of conference papers, institutional reports, or journal articlesto examine carefully each research report for completeness ofdata reporting.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This paper discusses some conceptual and methodologicalproblems encountered in previous research on the cohesion of realworld groups. A consideration of these issues suggests futureresearch directions. First of all, cohesion experts need toagree on a definition of cohesion. We need to achieve whatBednar and Kaul (1978) have called a "consensual definition" ofthe construct. Instruments with desirable psychometricproperties must be used for the measurement of cohesion, forcriterion measures of group performance or effectiveness, and forpertinent moderator variables such as organizational commitmentand leadership practices. In particular, considerably moreresearch effort needs to be devoted to the development ofmeaningful measures of group performance. The interrelationshipsof cohesion and other variables must be mapped out in terms ofcauses and effects, recognizing that doing so will require fieldexperimentation with comparison groups. Only with rigorousresearch combined with rigorous research reporting can cumulativeknowledge be developed to enhance organizational functioning.

15

References

Eakeman, R., & Helmreich, R. (1975). Cohesiveness andperformance: Covariation and causality in an underseaenvironment. Journal of Exoerimental Social Psychology, U,478-479.

Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdill's handbook of Ileadershi (rev.ad.). New York: The Free Press.

Bauer, R. G., Stout, R., & Holz, R. F. (1977). Mei1sL .QLmilitary attitudes. (Research Problem Review 77-1).Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioraland Social Sciences.

Bednar, R. L., & Kaul, T. J. (1978). Experiential groupresearch: Current perspectives. In S. L. Garfield and A. E.Bergin (Edo.), Handbook of ppvchothgrapy and behaviog change:An e-pirical analyais. New York: Wiley.

Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latentvariables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psycholoav. 3U,419-56.

Beyer, J. M. (1985). From the editor. Academy of ManagementJunl 21, 5-8.

Blades, J. W. (1986). Rules for leadershiDr Improving unitperformanc..Washington, DC: National Defense UniversityPress.

Blau, P. M. (1963). The dynamics of bureaucracy (rev. ed.).e% -. University of Chicago Press.

Borman, W. C., Motowidlo, S. J., Rose, S. R., & Hanser, L. M.(1987). eg__fectiy•@e•_s. (ARITechnical Report 741). Alexandria, VA: U.S, Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral and Social. Sciences. (AD A191 625)

Campbell, D. T,, & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent anddinciminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Psvcholoaical Bulletin, U,, 81-105.

Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness of sport groups:Interpretations and considerations. Journal of SgortPsychology, i, 123-138.

Carron, A. V., & Chelladural, P. (1981). The dynamics of groupcohesion in sport. Journal of Sport Psycholoav, ,, 123-139.

17

.. ...... Y I .. .. i . . . . . . . . . ... • . . . . . . . . .L - ' • . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .

Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. InD. Cartwright & A. Zander, Group dynamice: Research and theory(3rd ed.) (pp. 91-109). New York: Harper & Row.

Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. 3. (1981).The experience of work. London; Academic Press.

Day, R. W., Jacobs, T. 0., Clement, S. D., & Johns, R. H.(1979). Mili ar jit cohesiveness. Unpublished reportprepared for the Army Personnel Management Action Committee.

Department of the Army. (1986). Digtionary of United StatesAm zjl. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of theArmy.

Dess, G. G., & Origer, N. K. (1987). Environment, structure andconsensus in strategy formulation: A conceptualinterpretation. Academy oZ Management Review, U2, 2--220.

Deutsch, M. (1968). Field theory in social psychology. InG. Lindsay & E. Aronson (Ede.), The handbook of socialP (2nd ed.) (pp. 412-487). Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Devilbiss, M. C. (1987, October). Challenles in assessinamilitary cohesion. Paper presented at the meeting of theInter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society, Chicago,IL.

Downey, R. G., Duffy, P. J., & Shiflett, S. (1975). Cririionmeasures of leadership and unit effectiveness in small combatunits. (ARI Research Memorandum 75-9). Arlington, VA: USArmy Research Institute for the Behavioral and SocialSciences.

Druckman, D., & Swats, J. A. (Edo.) (1988). Enhancing humanpep• •a.nce: Issues._thesis., and technigues.Washington D. C.: National Academy Press.

English, H. B., & English, A. C. (1958). A comprehensived o of Dsycholoical and -sychcanalvtical tem. NewYork: David McKay.

Etzioni, A. (1975). A comparative analysis of comolecxorganizatilons (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication.Psycholouical Review, ji, 217-282.

Goodacre, D. M. 1II (1951). The use of a sociometric test as apredictor of combat unit effectiveness. Sgi•aetj, J4,148-152.

18

Goodaure, D. M. III (1953). Group characteristics of good andpoor performing combat units. Sgnet•xy, i•, 168-179.

Gordon, M. E., Slade, L. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The "scienceof the sophomore" revisited: From conjecture to empiricism.Academy of Management Review, f1, 191-207.

Greene, B. F., & Hall, a. A. (1984). Cumulative methods forliterature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, U1, 37-53.

Griffith , J. (1986), August). Group cohesion in military units:s.,nmeasurement and conception. Paper presented at the meeting

of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D C.

Criffith, 3. (1987, August). Is cohesion-a meanindaulnsygholoaical construct for Military organizations?Paper presented at the meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation, New York, NY.

Griffith , J. (undated). Toward a conception and measurement ofmilitary unit cohesign. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.

Griffith, J., & Chopper, M. (1986). A trixartite conoegtionArnd measurement of military unit cohesion. Unpublishedtechnical paper. Washington, D.C., Department of MilitaryPsychiatry, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Hackman,.3. R. (1976). Group influences on individuals.In 1. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial andorganigational 2svoholocy (pp. 1455-1525). Chicago: RandMcNally.

Hare, A. P. (1976). Handbook of small grou2 research (2nd ed.).New York: Free Press.

Hedlund, M., & Yoest, E. (1984). Group-cohesion in combat: A• (Personnel Utilization Technical Area Working Paper

84-26). U.S. Army Research Tnstitute for the Behavioral andSocial Sciences.

Ivancevich, i. M., Szilagyi, A. D. Jr., & Wallace, M. J. Jr.(1977). Organizational behavior and gerformance.

Jackson, G. B. (1980). Methods for integrative reviews. evimiof Educational Research, I, 438-460.

Janis, I. L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysisof conflict, choice end commitment. New York: Free Press.

Keller, R. T. (1987). Predictors of the performance of projectgroups in R&D organizations. Academy of Management Journal,211 715-726.

19

Light, R. J. & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summina up: The scienceof reviewina research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness asinterpersonal attraction: A review of relationships withantecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Buttletin,

j4., 259-309.

Mikalachki, A. (1969). Group cohesion*reconsidered. London,Ontario: School of Business Administration, University ofWestern Ontario.

Moos, R. H. (1986). Military Environment Inventory'manual. PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Motowidlo, S. J., & Borman, W. C. (1978). Relationships betweenmilitary morale, motivation, satisfaction, and uniteffectiveness. aournal of Ao~lied Psvcholovy, 63, 47-52.

Nelson, P. D., & Berry, N. H. (1968). Cohesion in Marine recruiti.1ato nQ, (Report No. 66-26). Washington, D.C.: Navy MedicalNeuropsychiatric Unit, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery,Department of Navy.

Nieva, V. F., Fleishman, E. A., & Rieck, A. & Strasel, H. C.(1985). Team dimensions: Their identity, their measurement,and their relationships. (Research Note 85-12). Alexandria,VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and SocialSciences. (AD A149 662)

Nunnally, 3. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Oliver, L. W. (1987a). Thq rejlationshij of a goup cohesion toaroum oerformance: A research integration attemat. (ARITechnical Report 712). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A177 807)

Oliver, L. W. (1987b). Research integration forpsychologisto: An overview of approaches. gournal of AppliedSocial Psycholoav, 17, 860-874.

Oliver, L. W., & Spokane, 4. R. (1983). Research integration:Approaches, problems, and recommendations for research.Journal of counseling Psycholoay, U, 252-257.

Olson, D. M., & Borman, W. C. (1987). Devel.onmgnt and fi&gjtgsts of the Army Work Environment Ouost 4 nairs . (ARITechnical Report 737). Alexandria, VA: . Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral anL Social Scib.,ces. (AD A182 078)

20

Orvin, R. G., & Cordray, D. S. (1985). Effects of deficientreporting on mete-analysis: A conceptual framework andreanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 27, 134-147.

Piper, W. E., Marrache, M., Lacroix, R., Richardsen, A. M., &Jones, B. D. (1983). Cohesion as a basic bond in groups.Human Relations, Up, 93-108.

Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). oorganizjtional measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

Schneider, B. (1985). Organizational behavior. Annual Review-ofMycholgD, 3U, 573-611.

Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology ofclimates. Personnel Psycholoav, 36, 19-39.

Schriesheim, Z. F. (1980). The social context of leader-subordinate relations: An investigation of the effects ofgroup cohesiveness. 3ournal of Alied Pgcholog, 65,183-194.

Seashore, S. E. (1954). Groug cohesiveness in the industrial3pX. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Schein, E.H. (1985). QOranizational culture and leadership. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Siebold, G. L. :1987, April). Bonding in Army combat uni•;.Paper presented at the meeting of the Southern SociologicalSociety, Altanta, GA.

Siebold, G. L. (1987, August). Concentualization and definitionsof military unit cohesiveness. Paper presented at the meetingof the American Psychological Association, New York, VY.

Siebold, G. L., & Kelley, D. (1987, May). Cghesion as-an_indicator of command climate. Paper presented at the ThirdAnnual Leadership Research Conference, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

Taylor, 67. C., & Bowers, D.G. 11972). Surey-ofrani.&tions:A-machin• scored standardied acuestionnaire inscrument. AnnArbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University iofMichigan.

Zander, A. (1979). The psychology of group processes. Anmal-Review of Psvcholoav. 1, 417-451.

21