# data[].attributes.headline
Melanie Kostantino sees the value in similar values...

# data[].attributes.subject
Melanie Kostantino sees the value in similar values...

# data[].attributes.body
I've been on a few cohesive teams throughout my education. Generally, the teams have similar values in terms of the quality of work expected and how to manage responsibilities.

# data[].attributes.headline
Laura Donoway emphasizes postivity and dedication...

# data[].attributes.subject
Laura Donoway emphasizes postivity and dedication...

# data[].attributes.body
Fostering productive teamwork takes more than productive people. They need to be positive and dedicated to the end goal.

# data[].attributes.body
Honestly, the only thing that can really lead to team conflict is not pulling your weight or lack of respect and communication. Communication is definitely key for group cohesion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Professor Stoerger cautions us about group think...

# data[].attributes.subject
Professor Stoerger cautions us about group think...

# data[].attributes.body
"I've had colleagues who allow students who are friends form groups, only to find that the final product is less than stellar. In a way, these teams started off the project from a group think perspective in that they came to the table with basically the same likes, dislikes, values, and perspectives."

# data[].attributes.headline
Nadja Miller has experienced cohesive teams...

# data[].attributes.subject
Nadja Miller has experienced cohesive teams...

# data[].attributes.body
"It was almost like a good marriage. There were arguments and laughter. Sometimes we were angry at each other but overall, we made it work."

# data[].attributes.headline
Christopher Doris is on a particularly cohesive team...

# data[].attributes.subject
Christopher Doris is on a particularly cohesive team...

# data[].attributes.body
The team that I’m currently on is actually particularly cohesive even though we operate primarily as what Williams calls a virtual team...our team benefits benefits from our small size and what Williams would refer to as well established norms of behavior (p. 206).  ...None of this would be possible without the structure for success our manager provides us and his strategic abilities to think ahead, apply insight from broadly established internal and external relationships and providing us with goals that are reasonable and attainable. Throughout our team interactions we’ve been able to engender a shared sense of trust and purpose as we work together towards our collective goals.

# data[].attributes.headline
Melanie Konstantinou experienced a fragmented team...

# data[].attributes.subject
Melanie Konstantinou experienced a fragmented team...

# data[].attributes.body
"The most disastrous teams in my experience were always the ones where relational conflict was more prevalent."

# data[].attributes.body
1. Improve customer satisfaction

2. Improve product and service quality

3. Increased job satisfaction

4. Speed and efficiency in product development

5. Advantages from group decision-making

(Williams)

# data[].attributes.headline
Samantha Connell doesn't like Williams suggestions on cohesion...

# data[].attributes.subject
Samantha Connell doesn't like Williams suggestions on cohesion...

# data[].attributes.body
"I don’t think Williams’s cohesiveness points are realistic in many situations.  In our asynchronous online graduate class, time is very valuable, there is no way to enforce members being present at all meetings and creating additional opportunities, or any other team-building activity isn’t something that can help me in our class group work."

# data[].attributes.body
"Ninety-one percent of organizations are significantly improving their effectiveness by using work teams."

# data[].attributes.body
1. Initially high turnover

2. Social loafing and "slackers"

3. Disadvantages of group decision-making

4. Group Think

5. Minority Domination

(Williams)

# data[].attributes.headline
Neil Shah experiences a fragmented team...

# data[].attributes.subject
Neil Shah experiences a fragmented team...

# data[].attributes.body
"We had to write a research paper together and everyone was too busy. Most of the team failed to accommodate for each other schedule and communication wasn’t there. Everyone had their own skills and talents, however social loafing occurred because it was hard to hold people accountable when few checked their messages or met up in person. By the same token, that team didn’t perform too well because we were never on the same page and that led to errors on the report itself."

# data[].attributes.headline
Dana Brownlee gives us tools to deal with slackers...

# data[].attributes.subject
Dana Brownlee gives us tools to deal with slackers...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to manage the slacker on your team and build a culture of accountability

# data[].attributes.headline
Effective Teams Must Have The Following Qualities:

# data[].attributes.subject
Effective Teams Must Have The Following Qualities:

# data[].attributes.body
1. A clear purpose

2. Interdependent efforts

3. Shared accountability

4. Belief that outcome will be better by working together

(Lynda.com)

# data[].attributes.headline
Professor Stoerger introduces us to Whitney Johnson...

# data[].attributes.subject
Professor Stoerger introduces us to Whitney Johnson...

# data[].attributes.body
Not only do team members have different skills and social strengths, but they are also at different points on a learning curve.

"If you think about it, just as an ocean is made up of a many waves, your organization, any organization, is basically a collection of S curves. And you build this A team, a team where you’re optimizing for innovation, the ability to manage through change, with 70% of your people in the sweet spot of that learning curve, where they’re about to peak or crest; you’ve got 15% of your people at the low end, beginning to swell; and you’ve got 15% at the high end who are actually about to crash."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whitney Johnson, an executive coach, argues that on-the-job learning is the key to keeping people motivated. When managers understand that, and understand where the people they manage are on their individual learning curve - the low end, the sweet spot, or the high end - employees are engaged, productive, and innovative. Johnson is the author of the book Build an A-Team: Play to Their Strengths and Lead Them Up the Learning Curve.
Download this podcast
SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast, from Harvard Business Review. I'm Sarah Green Carmichael.

Which person would you rather hire: someone who has all the skill and experience and can hit the ground running, or someone who might need a little additional training? A lot of managers are tempted to hire the person who can just do the job well from day one. But consider this:

WHITNEY JOHNSON: And when they do get that person who can come in that doesn't need any training, then that person's bored really quickly, and then you've got a whole other problem.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That's why our guest, Whitney Johnson, urges managers to hire candidates who will have to learn on the job. As it turns out, learning is pretty essential to engagement. Whitney's an executive coach, and her new book is Build an A-Team.

Thank you so much for talking to us today, Whitney.

WHITNEY JOHNSON: Thank you for having me, Sarah.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, this all goes back to an idea that you've articulated that people have these S-shaped learning curves, that we all follow this path of learning, and it does take this sort of S-like shape. So, explain to me how that works.

WHITNEY JOHNSON: Everyone who's listening, I want you to picture this S in your mind and then think about a new job, a new role, a new project, a new business. And when you start at the bottom of that S, it's like the bottom of a wave. You're going to be very inexperienced. There's going to be this time when you're feeling confused. There are all these different pieces; they're like puzzle pieces, and you don't quite know how to put them together. You don't quite know how to make sense of them. And that's typically going to last for six months to - well, up to six months, sometimes as long as a year, where you're at the bottom of that S: inexperienced, not quite knowing what you're doing. And the reason it's important to be aware of that is that helps you avoid the discouragement that can come where you get home from work and think, I have no idea what I'm doing. Well, you're supposed to not have any idea what you're doing because you're at the bottom of the S.

And then, as you put in that effort, you start to move to the knee of the curve, or the tipping point, where your competence really starts to accelerate, and you are feeling incredibly confident; you're feeling engaged. This is the exciting part of that learning curve where you know enough but not too much. And you're typically in that place for a year, maybe up to three or four years at most if your boss is giving you stretch assignments.

And then as you move up to the top of that S, it flattens out, and you put in the time to become a master. You know exactly what you're doing, which is good because you've got this great ability to do things; it's super easy for you. But because you're a master and you're no longer enjoying those feel-good effects of learning, you can get bored. And so that's what that looks like, and once you get to that top point, after four maybe five years at most, it's time for you to disrupt yourself, start all over, go back down to the bottom of the curve, and then continue basically to learn, to leap, and then repeat over and over again with projects, with your career, with businesses, etc.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, the idea, right, is that managers will have different people on their team who are at different stages. So, in what way is a highly productive team really a collection of people at different stages on the learning curve?

WHITNEY JOHNSON: If you think about it, just as an ocean is made up of a many waves, your organization, any organization, is basically a collection of S curves. And you build this A team, a team where you're optimizing for innovation, the ability to manage through change, with 70% of your people in the sweet spot of that learning curve, where they're about to peak or crest; you've got 15% of your people at the low end, beginning to swell; and you've got 15% at the high end who are actually about to crash.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, but why don't you want everyone on this exciting part of the learning curve? Why is it a good thing to have some people at the low end and some people at the high end?

WHITNEY JOHNSON: So, at the low end of the curve - and, again, we're trying to optimize for innovation, right? So, at the low end of the learning curve, you're inexperienced, so, you're going to be slower, right? That's the downside, but the upside of that is that you're not blind through familiarity. So, you ask lots of different questions, like, why do we do it like this? And on the one hand, that can be kind of pesky, like a three-year old, like why, why, why, why, why; and yet, if we're willing to be patient with those questions and also not be threatened because they're saying, why do you do it like this, then those questions are going to uncover all sorts of opportunities, potentially strategic opportunities, for your organization. And so, you do need people who are inexperienced.

You also need masters because if you think about the high end of that curve as a mountain top, they've got this perspective. So, on the one hand, they're not necessarily going to be innovative; that's something the people on the low end and at the sweet spot do, but they also have perspective, perspective that can be tremendously helpful. They are a library of information, and so if they are willing to transmit that and help people understand and have this perspective, it can be tremendously valuable. Now, of course, the risk is if they stay too long, then they're going to get bored, and so that plateau basically becomes a precipice; and when people are bored; they either leave; or they get complacent and they stay. And so, there's downside in both instances.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: I want to talk a little bit more now about the sweet spot of the curve, cause, like, the fun part is in the middle, right? When you're on that steep part of the learning curve and every day just feels like you're learning something new; you're gaining traction. I mean, if more managers were able to get people in that mindset, what would the impact on the organization as a whole be?

WHITNEY JOHNSON: Oh, tremendous. Tremendous. Because when you're able to show up and you're learning, I mean, you think about every day you're like, what do I get to learn today? What do I get to figure out, and who do I get to figure it out with? The question becomes is how do you make sure that that continues to happen? Because once you get people in the sweet spot, you want them to stay there for a few years. And the way that you do that is you give them stretch assignments; you give them hard things to do. Don't back away from those things that are hard for them, because that's when you're going to continue to every day to get that great work. They need to be Goldilocks assignments - not too hard, not too easy - but give them those assignments.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: There are some folks who may not want those kinds of stretch assignments. They are comfortable in their roles. They enjoy that kind of predictability of work every day. And while there is a kind of risk that those people will get bored, there are some people who are sort of comfortable working to live rather than living to work and to sort of want their work to stay the same. So, if you are managing some folks who really don't want stretch assignments or who keep pushing back when you suggest that they could take on new or different things, how do you deal with that as a boss?

WHITNEY JOHNSON: Well, it depends. So, if you're, if you're trying to push them and they're like, nah, I don't want more, and their works kind of middling, then that's an issue. If you're pushing someone, and they're showing up to work every day and they're just doing a really good job, then they're still in the sweet spot. And so, I think that's one of the things we have to gauge is there are sometimes going to be situations where a person is doing really good work and you look at them and say, I can see more for this person. And there could be more if they wanted it, but what they really want is to come to work, do really good work every day, and then go home, and that's OK. But that doesn't mean they're at the high end. It means they're in the sweet spot. It's just that their sweet spot looks a little different than what you think their sweet spot could look like.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Yeah. So, the final stage of the S curve is having mastered what you do. So, when someone is in that position and the stretch roles have realistically kind of run out; the stretch assignments have done their job, and now it's time to do something else. What kinds of roles can these people play in our organizations?

WHITNEY JOHNSON: So, there are a couple of different answers to that question. I would say, first of all, when a person gets to the top of the curve, they need to come to you and say, you know, I'm at the top of my curve. It's time for me to do something new. But remember, that's a really scary proposition. So, because sometimes that'll mean that basically they've just pushed themselves off the island, right, by asking that question. So, I think we need to be aware of how much power we as a manager wheeled in that situation.

The conversation, I think, should go something like this: You're at the top of your curve. In about six to nine months, I'm going to help you jump to a new curve. And I will help you make that happen. Here's what I need you to do in the meantime. No. 1, I need you to, I need you to set the pace. So, I need you to basically be the pace car like in the Indy 500 for the team, set the pace for the low enders and the sweet spotters to excel. And I don't want to hear any of this, I've paid my dues, like that's verboten. So, that's the first thing I need you to do. The second thing I need you to do is to train your successor so that when you jump to a new curve, we still have all that institutional knowledge in place. And the third thing that they can do for the team, again, before they jump, is to really facilitate collaboration amongst the other team members. Once you're at the top of that curve, again, think of that mountain of that plateau where you've got this perspective, this vantage point, this vista of things that had been done, that have worked, haven't worked; and also because you know you're going to jump, you don't quite have your same skin in the S-curve game that you once did because you've started to move on, at least emotionally, is to facilitate collaboration amongst the other people on the team, and so that's the role that you can play as a master in that place, in that moment, right before you leap to do something new.

Now, to your next question is once you get there, applaud their achievements. I think too often once a person gets to the top of a curve, it's like, OK, time to do something next. Memorialize what they've done like you would a birthday or an anniversary; like, what happened on your team that was good and positive because this person was on this S curve at this point in time. And take a moment just to mark that and be aware of it because I think that that really lets the person, know, I value you, I see you and we're appreciative for what you've done. If you haven't already, identify a new curve. And then from there, you deliver on the promise of helping them find a curve.

Now what do you do? So, sometimes there are going to be roles on your team that they can jump to. Sometimes there won't be roles on your team; you'll need to help them jump to something new inside of the organization, but if you really believe that the talent belongs not to you and to your fiefdom, but to the organization, you will happily let them do that.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Yeah, so, I think a lot of managers might like the idea of hiring people who are at the low end of the learning curve because they are hungry, and they are cheaper than people who can do the job already perfectly. But a lot of managers I think will struggle with the advice of letting go of their masters or assigning them to difficult new things in a way because they'll say to themselves, but I finally have gotten these people to the point where they really know what they're doing and I can rely on them. And they don't want to give up those people. In some ways, they're too valuable to give to some other manager or promote to some other task. What do you say to those managers who might be struggling with that?

WHITNEY JOHNSON: Well, first of all, I would say to them, you are not alone. But I think if we can say to ourselves, OK, this is normal; this is natural; I've worked really hard for this person, but then also recognize that this is the danger zone. Of course you want them right where they are where they're going to do you the most good, but if you're really playing the long game, you will recognize that when you let that person jump to a new learning curve, you're going to reignite their curiosity. They will then become more productive for the organization generally. And perhaps more importantly for you as an individual, when you let people learn and you let them leap and then you let them repeat, you become a boss that people want to work for. And when people want to work for you, then you start to become a talent magnet. And then you start building A teams, and not only one A team, but you build vast networks of A teams across your career. So, there are reasons to do it, and I'm partly scaring telling you - I'm scaring you into doing it because you're going to lose them anyway, but I'm also saying, here's the carrot: don't you want to be a boss that people want to work for so that you know if that person leaves there are going to be many other people waiting in the wings to work for you because they know they can trust that you are going to develop them.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, as a manager, how do you figure out where people are on their learning curve? And is someone just struggling because they're at the low end of the curve and they'll get it? Is someone really engaged because they are learning a lot - or? It's hard to see inside people's head, so how do you figure out where they are?

WHITNEY JOHNSON: It is. So, there are a couple different things you can do. First of all, if a person's been in a role for six months to a year, they're probably at the low end. If they've been in their role or on the same project for a year to three, maybe four years, sweet spot. More than four years, high end of the curve. We also have diagnostics that people can go to my website and take that diagnostic at whitneyjohnson.com/diagnostic. So, you can have your people on your team actually take this S-curve locator and then plot this all out and so you can say, all right, we've got 50% here in the middle, we've got 30% in the low end, 20% at the high end. So, that's another thing that you can do.

And so, there are four questions that you can ask yourself to figure out if it's the right or wrong curve because you obviously don't want to declare that curve dead prematurely. So, No. 1, you want to ask yourself, is this person playing where no one else is playing? And what does that mean inside of a work context? It means that sometimes we hire people to do a job that someone else on the team is already doing because over time what we take on shifts and morphs in order to respond to market needs. So, you want to make sure that this person is doing a job that no one else on the team is already de facto doing.

No. 2, are they playing to their strengths? And you as their manager, it's really important to be able to not only identify a person's strengths, their superpowers, but to persuade them to use those superpowers because our superpowers, your superpowers, because they're so reflexive for you, because they're so easy for you, it's like the air that you're breathing, and you don't value it. And so, part of your responsibility as a boss is to not only identify a person's strengths but then make sure that what you see as valuable they know it's being valued, not somehow being taken away from them. So, that's the second question. Play where no one else is playing, are you playing to your strength.

No. 3 is find out is this hard for this person, or is it debilitating. So, if they're coming to work; they've got energy, brimming with, OK, let's do this, then it's the good kind of hard. If they seem like they're dreading their work, they're kind of discouraged, then those may be symptoms of a flat-lining curve.

And the fourth, you've just got to monitor momentum. And momentum would look like, OK, this week, said person, said employee, seemed like they knew what they were doing for four hours out of the 40 hours, and next week it's eight hours. And so, you're starting point is usually to a large degree irrelevant. What you want to figure out is are they growing and how fast. So, play where no one else is playing, are they playing to their strengths, is it hard but not debilitating, and are they gaining momentum? And if you can answer yes to all four questions, then growth is on its way. If you're answering no to two or more, then it may be the wrong curve. So that's a quick way to gauge if it's the right curve or the wrong curve. And if it is the right curve, then just say hello to the low end at the curve and know that you've just got to persist.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Yeah, so, Whitney, you do some coaching, as well as the million other things that you do. And I'm wondering, it seems like when someone is making that leap from being really good at something and really skilled, that they're at the top of their curve, to a new curve and suddenly they're at the bottom, it seems like that is a moment where some coaching is needed. And what would your advice be to managers who are trying to help someone who's used to being really good at something make the transition to like, holy crap, I don't know what I'm doing?

WHITNEY JOHNSON: Yeah. I would say first of all, be patient, be patient, and help them. If they understand this S curve or learning curve, and you walk them through that and say, OK, you've just now jumped to the bottom of this curve. You are going to be inexperienced. You are going to be frustrated many days, and you're probably going to be frustrated for about six months. And then one day you're gonna wake up and say, ah, I'm not frustrated anymore. That's because your brain has started to piece everything together. And the other thing I would say is, you know, when you're thinking about disrupting and disrupting, whether it's a product or you as an individual, if it's scary and lonely, you're on the right path. I mean, you're playing where no one else is playing, and you're playing where you haven't played before. And so, it's going to feel a little scary. So, be patient with yourself and then that's, that's the person who's working for you.

Now, you as the manager, you need to have that person's back. And so, it's important for you to say to your boss, OK, we're going to try this new project; we're going to put this person here. We think there's a 70% chance it's going to work, um, but there's a 30% chance it's not going to work. So, if it doesn't work, do I have your word that you'll have my back? And so, I think that that's another way that we can play this. I think too often we look at things in a very binary, you know, toggle the switch on or off as opposed to talking through more and this is the right thing to do, this is what it might look like. This is what it might not look like. Let's proceed anyway and be willing to deal with the murkiness that's going to come knowing that you know, we're, we're sub-optimizing the present to optimize the future.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, if we are continually pushing ourselves or continually pushing the people who work for us to try new things and experiment and learn, some degree of failure is inevitable. So, what can managers do to really make the most of those learning opportunities?

WHITNEY JOHNSON: Yeah. So, I would say, so a moment ago we talked about, you know, calibrating the risk and having a person's back. So, I think that's a starting point. The next piece is that - is to remember that, you know, failure is an event, not a person, that it's shame that limits disruption, not failure; that whether we choose to see an experience as a failure or success is a choice. Like, all those things, I think even if a person is inclined to not allow the shame to creep in, which is what's going to push them back down the curve so that they're not able to continue to move up, it's important that we as managers not affix shame or shame them in some way. And so, I think that's an important aspect of it. But once that emotional side of it is dealt with, which I would argue is the most important part of it, or at least the part that people struggle to deal with the most, is I would say to yourself, OK, what's the ROI on this failure? What have we learned? What valuable lesson have we learned because of this failure?

And I would say, Sarah, when we don't allow people to fail who are on our team, there's something else going on. Because if you think about it, we'd let people fail all the time. I mean, really, people are making mistakes and their course correcting every single day of the week. And so, if we're not willing to allow a person to failure fail, first of all, we need to do some internal work cause maybe we're not allowing them to fail because if it's our own shame, but I think there's also another piece of it. If we're really not allowing them to fail, at some level, we're not actually invested in that person. And so, we're doing them a disservice by continuing to be their boss because we're not really truly invested in them in their learning curve. And so, we may want to find a new learning curve for them to jump to so that they can have a boss who will be invested in them. And so, I think that's also even a signal as well, if we're, if, if it turns out that we're not willing to let them fail, what else is happening?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Say someone is at the top of their curve, and you really don't see a future for them in your organization. How do you have that difficult conversation where you say to them, as a manager who's genuinely looking out for their learning and growth, like, you've kind of hit your ceiling here. How do you talk to them about that? WHITNEY JOHNSON: I think you do exactly what you just said. You say to them - because they will know, they will know if you really care about them; they're gonna know it. And so, if you say to them, I value you; you've done great work. I'm scanning the landscape. These are the various roles that are open. Those particular roles are not open to you. And perhaps more importantly, I don't think are the right roles for you because if they were the right role for you, they would be open to you. And I want you to continue learning because I'm about building you over the course of your career, so I'm going to help you find something else to do. A role for them with a supplier, with a vendor, or with a client.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, we've been talking about this a little bit as if the manager has total control over, you know, the ability to promote people or reassign them or help them find new roles. But of course, at the organizational level, this takes a tremendous amount of buy-in from HR, and there are some HR departments who are all about this, and there might be some who are like, what is this manager doing? Um, so what is the kind of role HR can play, and as a manager, are there ways that you can get help from HR or buy-in from HR to manage people this way so that if someone comes to you and says, I'm at the top of my curve, you can find a new role for them rather than sort of getting pushback from above.

WHITNEY JOHNSON: I would make it scarier not to change. Um, we're more motivated, we know from behavioral psychology, by what we might lose than what we might gain. So, here's how you might frame it when you're working with your team or working with your various stakeholders inside of the organization to get buy-in for this idea, is, No. 1, if we don't develop these people, we are going to lose them. We will lose our high-potentials. If we try to leave them right where they are, they're just going to leave us right where we are.

Even if you don't lose your high-potentials, if they stay, they're not going to be engaged. And if you're not engaged, you don't innovate. And if you don't innovate, then we as an organization are going to get disrupted. We are going to be less competitive. So, I think you can start there. So that's one way is you, you hit them over the head with a stick.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, Whitney, thank you so much for talking with us today.

WHITNEY JOHNSON: Thank you, Sarah.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That's Whitney Johnson. She's an executive coach and speaker. Her new book is Build an A-Team: Play to Their Strengths and Lead Them Up the Learning Curve.

Thanks for listening to the HBR IdeaCast. I'm Sarah Green Carmichael.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whitney Johnson, an executive coach, argues that on-the-job learning is the key to keeping people motivated. When managers understand that, and understand where the people they manage are on their individual learning curve - the low end, the sweet spot, or the high end - employees are engaged, productive, and innovative.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Unclear purpose

2. Lack of plan or commitment

3. Inability to deal with conflict

4. Lack of shared accountability

5. Insufficient resources

6. Lack of trust

(Lynda.com)

# data[].attributes.headline
Adithya Pothuri sees a situational effect...

# data[].attributes.subject
Adithya Pothuri sees a situational effect...

# data[].attributes.body
"Certain measures can be taken to strengthen the bond and therefore work effectively together, but the team members must be provided a suitable way for them to collaborate and share their thoughts in a convenient way."

# data[].attributes.body
"There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does."

"For 21st century tasks, that mechanistic, reward-and-punishment approach doesn't work, often doesn't work, and often does harm."

When it comes to creativity in problem-solving, extrinsic motivation doesn't work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The puzzle of motivation | Dan Pink | TED

# data[].attributes.headline
Karan Patel shares ideas to influence cohesion...

# data[].attributes.subject
Karan Patel shares ideas to influence cohesion...

# data[].attributes.body
"In my opinion majority of the groups I worked with had the same attitude towards the team objectives and goals and everyone was determined and positive throughout the completion which resulted to the ultimate success."

Sinha: "similarities of attitudes and values, one of the strongest sources of group cohesiveness is the similarity in attitudes and values among group members. We enjoy the company of people who hold similar opinions, morals, beliefs and code of conduct, because the person who shares the same opinions as we do provide us with a kind of social validation for our beliefs.” (p.1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article throws light on the twelve major factors influencing group cohesiveness, i.e, (1) Similarities of Attitudes and Values, (2) Size of the Group, (3) Time, (4) Location, (5) Status, (6) Difficulty in Entry, (7) Inter Dependency, (8) Management Behaviour, (9) Member Turnover, (10) Threat, (11) Previous Successes and Shared Goals, and (12) Cooperation.

1. Similarities of Attitudes and Values:

One of the strongest sources of group cohesiveness is the similarity in attitudes and values among group members. We enjoy the company of people who hold similar opinions, morals, beliefs and code of conduct, because the person who shares the same opinions as we do provide us with a kind of social validation for our beliefs. He provides us with a feeling that we are right. If someone disagrees with us, this might make us scared that we are wrong.

Similarity of interest is very important when the group's primary goal is that of creating a friendly interpersonal climate. This factor may not be so important when the goal is task oriented. For example, if the army has to win a strategic battle, then the task accomplishment becomes the cohesive factor rather than the similarity of attitudes and values because the unit may consist of soldiers from different parts of the country who may not have much in common.

2. Size of the Group:

Small groups are effective. The larger the size of the group, the less cohesive the group is.

The main reasons for this are as explained below:

(i) When the group is small, its members have constant face to face contacts. Thus, there will be high degree of interaction and communication with each other. In large groups, the possibility of interaction among members is less.

(ii) As group size increases, it becomes more difficult to get the group to agree on common goals and activities and expression of disagreement and dissatisfaction increases.

(iii) Another problem with large size groups is that there is a likelihood of forming small groups within the large groups. This would result in the dilution of the common group goal thus increasing the extent of power politics play. This tends to decrease the overall cohesiveness.

(iv) Studies have shown that if all the members of the group are of the same sex, then small groups have better cohesion than large ones. But when the groups were made up of both males and females, the large groups have better cohesion.

3. Time:

It is quite natural that the more time people spend with one another, the more they will get to know each other and more tendency there will be to get closer to each other, thus, strengthening the degree of cohesiveness. In a workplace, people who work near each other are more likely to spend more time together. In routine life, you will spend more time with only those whom you like personally and want to continue interacting with them.

4. Location:

Location of the group plays an important role in determining the cohesiveness. Where members of a group are located close together separated from other groups, they will develop greater cohesiveness because of constant face to face interaction. Where there is no dividing line between one group and another, cohesion is more difficult to achieve because a chain of interactions develops.

5. Status:

Status of a group determines the degree of group cohesiveness to a great extent. A high status group receives greater loyalty from its members which in turn makes the group more strong. That is why people are generally more loyal to high status groups.

6. Difficulty in Entry:

The more difficult it is to get in a group, the more cohesive that group becomes. The reasons is that in exclusive and elite groups the members are selected on the basis of certain characteristics and these characteristics being common to all add to the degree of liking and attraction towards each other. The more exclusive the group the more is the closeness among members. As the groups are not easy to join, the selected members feel a sense of pride and accomplishment.

7. Inter Dependency:

When each member of a group has independent activities, the cohesiveness among the members of such group will be less as compared to the group whose members are doing the operations which are dependent upon each other, thus, mutual dependency leads to greater cohesiveness.

8. Management Behaviour:

The behaviour of management has a direct influence on the degree of cohesiveness that exists within a group. The manager can make close relations difficult by creating unhealthy competition among employees. On the other hand, he can build solidarity by rewarding cooperative behaviour. The cohesive group can help attain the group goals more effectively, if the group members are properly inspired by the manager.

9. Member Turnover:

To make a group more cohesive, there is need for some degree of stable relationships among members. The higher the degree of member turnover, the less cohesive a group becomes, because the more frequently members leave a particular group the more time a new member takes to get attached to the group and the more time the old member takes to get attached to the new group.

10. Threat:

Threat is a very powerful force which unifies the group, particularly when it come from:

(i) Outside the group

(ii) Cooperation can help over-some the threat and

(iii) There is little or no chance for escape.

For example, the management threats frequently bring together an otherwise disarrayed union. Thus, the threatening party will have a less chance of success when faced with a unified force.

11. Previous Successes and Shared Goals:

When a group achieves a meaningful goal, the cohesiveness of the group increases because the success is shared by all the members and each one feels responsible for the achievement. , If the group agrees on the purpose and direction of its activities, this serves to bind the group together. For this reason, successful companies find it easy to hire new talented employees.

12. Cooperation:

Sometimes the general atmosphere of group enhances cohesiveness. The overall atmosphere depends among other things on leadership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 12 Factors Influencing Group Cohesiveness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ADVERTISEMENTS: This article throws light on the twelve major factors influencing group cohesiveness, i.e, (1) Similarities of Attitudes and Values, (2) Size of the Group, (3) Time, (4) Location, (5) Status, (6) Difficulty in Entry, (7) Inter Dependency, (8) Management Behaviour, (9) Member Turnover, (10) Threat, (11) Previous Successes and Shared Goals, and (12) Cooperation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Karan Patel maintains a positive outlook...

# data[].attributes.subject
Karan Patel maintains a positive outlook...

# data[].attributes.body
"...whenever I work in a group I always keep a positive attitude and prove to my teammates that I am determined and will be there for them in times of need"

# data[].attributes.body
"Group value consensus presents and interesting paradox.  The homogeneity it implies seems to be beneficial to work groups, in that it is likely to reduce relationship and process conflict; however, it may be detrimental by causing a decrease in task conflict or an increase in "groupthink."

The dilemna: "How can groups that will have moderately high levels of task conflict and low levels of relationship conflict be composed?"

"Our findings suggest that teams will be more successful to the extent that their leaders can promote constructive debate concerning the task at hand, especially at the midpoint of the interaction, while minimizing the potential for relationship and process conflict."