| One of the chief criticisms of the study of group cohesiveness is the lack of a unified definition. To this point, researchers (Cota, Longman, Evans, Dion, & Kilik, 1995; Mudrack, 1989) have complained that the literature on group cohesion is fraught with confusion and a lack of consistency in its measurement. However, as Mullen and Copper (1994) have suggested, the type of group under study can have significant effects on the very nature of group cohesiveness and, subsequently, its interaction with other variables. Accepting the proposition that the type of group under study may very well change the nature of the construct itself suggests that a unified definition of group cohesion may remain elusive. Perhaps then, more context specific definitions and measurement instruments should be the focus of research efforts. Within the scope of the organizational work team, researchers have largely drawn definitions and measurement instruments from other types of groups such as sports teams, military units, and therapy groups to examine work team cohesion which has led to inconclusive results within existing studies as to the structure of group cohesion as well as its impact on numerous organizational variables such as performance or organizational commitment. Therefore, this study proposed the development of a scale specific to the organizational work team and provides a theoretical discussion of the background and need for the scale. |
