Skip to main content

Advertisement

You are viewing the new article page. Let us know what you think. Return to old version

The development and validation of an organizational cohesion inventory

Abstract

This study develops a scale, organizational cohesion inventory (OCI), which measures cohesion at the organizational level. The OCI contains six dimensions: employee centripetalism, leader cohesiveness, task cooperation, interpersonal harmony, benefit sharing, and value identification. We conducted three studies to develop and validate the OCI in the Chinese context. In Study 1, we generated and selected scale items, and examined the construct validity of the OCI. Study 2 tested its incremental validity and nomological validity. Study 3 assessed its concurrent validity. In general, results of the three studies show that the OCI has good psychometric properties. It is therefore could be useful for more thorough and comprehensive studies on organizational cohesion.

References

  1. Anderson J C, Gerbing D W (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3): 411–423

  2. Bagozzi R P, Philips L W (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3): 459–489

  3. Beal D J, Cohen R R, Burke M J, McLendon C L (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6): 989–1004

  4. Benson J, Hagtvet K (1996). The Interplay among Design, Data Analysis, and Theory in the Measurement of Coping. New York: Wiley

  5. Blau P (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley

  6. Bollen K A (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley

  7. Bollen K A, Hoyle R H (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69(2): 479–504

  8. Cameron K S, Quinn R E (1999). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

  9. Carless S A, De Paola C (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31(1): 71–88

  10. Carron A V, Widmeyer W N, Brawley L R (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, (7): 244–266

  11. Chen Z X, Francesco A M (2003). The relationship between the three components of commitment and employee performance in China. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(3):490–510

  12. Chen Z X, Tsui A S, Farh J L (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(3): 339–356

  13. Colquitt J A (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3): 386–400

  14. Cronbach L J, Meehl P E (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52: 281–302

  15. Durkheim E (1930/1996). 自杀论 (Le Suicide). 冯韵文 (Feng Yunwen) (Trans.). 北京: 商务印书馆

  16. Earley C (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 565–581

  17. Estabrooks P A, Carron A V (2000). The physical activity group environment questionnaire: An instrument for the assessment of cohesion in exercise classes. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 4(3): 230–243

  18. Evans N J, Jarvis P A (1980). Group cohesion: A review and re-evaluation. Small Group Behavior, 17: 359–370

  19. Evans N J, Jarvis P A (1986). The group attitude scale: A measure of attraction to group. Small Group Behavior, 17(2): 203–216

  20. Farh J L, Zhong C B, Organ D W (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science, 15: 241–253

  21. Farh J, Early P C, Lin S (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly: 421–444

  22. Folger R, Konovsky M A (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy Of Management Journal, 32: 115–130

  23. Fornell C, Larcker D F (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 39–50

  24. Giles W F, Findley H M, Field H S (1997). Procedural fairness in performance appraisal: Beyond the review session. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11: 493–506

  25. Gouldner A W (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25: 161–178

  26. Hofstede G (1983). National cultures in four dimensions. International Studies of Management and Organization, 13: 46–74

  27. Hofstede G (1992). Cultural constraints in management theories. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas, NV

  28. Hofstede G, Bond, M H (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5–21

  29. Hogg M A (1992). The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity. New York: Harvester Wheat Sheaf

  30. Homans G C (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63: 597–606

  31. Johnson N L, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N (1995). Continuous Univariate Distributions. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley

  32. Jöreskog K G (1971). Statistical analysis of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36: 109–133

  33. Jöreskog K G (1993). Testing Structural Equation Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

  34. Kotter J P, Heskett J L (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance. New York: Free Press

  35. Langfred C W (1998). Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? An investigation of the effects of cohesiveness on performance. Small Group Research, 29(1): 124–143

  36. Lewin K (1935). A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill

  37. Masterson S S, Lewis K, Goldman B M, Taylor M S (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy Of Management Journal, 43: 738–748

  38. Meyer J P, Allen N J (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1: 61–89

  39. Mudrack P E (1989). Defining group cohesiveness: A legacy of confusion? Small Group Behavior, 20: 37–49

  40. Mullen B, Copper C (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2): 210–227

  41. Podsakoff P M, Mackenzie S B, Lee J Y, Podsakoff N P (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903

  42. Podsakoff P M, Mackenzie S B, Paine J B, Bachrach D G (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26: 513–565

  43. Schein E (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

  44. Schwab D P (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In: Cummings L L & Staw B M (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 3–43

  45. Sechrest L (1963). Incremental validity: A recommendation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23: 153–158

  46. Siebold G L (1999). The evolution of the measurement of cohesion. Military Psychology, 11(1): 5–26

  47. Spreitzer G M (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy Of Management Journal, 38(5): 1442–1465.

  48. Strauss A, Corbin J (1990). Basic of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park: Sage

  49. Tajfel H (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33: 1–39

  50. Thompson B, Daniel L G (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56: 197–208

  51. Triandis C H (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

  52. Trompenaars F (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. London: The Economist Books

  53. Ungson G R, Sterrs R M, Park S (1997). Korean Enterprise: The Quest for Globalization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

  54. Yang B Y, Watkins K E, Marsick V J (2004). The Construct of learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1):31–55

  55. 侯 杰泰, 温 忠麟, 成 子娟 (Hau K T, Wen Zhonglin, Cheng Zijuan) (2004). 结构方程模型及其应用 (Structural equation model and its applications). 北京: 教育科学出版社

  56. 敬 之, 佟 沛 (Jing Zhi, Tong Pei) (1992). 关于企业凝聚力的调查分析 (An investigation and analysis on enterprises’ cohesiveness). 经营与管理, (5): 30–31

  57. 李 海, 张 勉 (Li Hai, Zhang Mian) (2008). 凝聚力的结构、 形成和影响: 一个研究述评 (A review on the construct, measures, and impacts of cohesiveness). 经济管理, (7): 47–51

  58. 李 海, 张 勉, 李 博 (Li Hai, Zhang Mian, Li Bo) (2009). 组织凝聚力结构与影响因素: 案例研究及理论构建 (The construct and antecedents of organizational cohesiveness: A case study and the theory development). 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), (6): 49–58

  59. 李 辽宁, 闻 燕华 (Li Liaoning, Wen Yanhua) (2007). 近年来我国对社会整合问题的研究综述 (A studies review on the social integration in recent years China). 贵州社会科学, (2): 56–60

  60. 邱 皓政 (Qiu Haozheng) (2003). 结构方程模式: LISREL 的理论、 技术与应用 (Principles and practice of structural equation model with LISREL). 台北: 双叶书廊

  61. 吴 志明, 武 欣 (Wu Zhiming, Wu Xin) (2005). 知识工作团队中组织公民行为对团队有效性的影响作用研究 (Effects of organizational citizenship behaviors on team effectiveness: A empirical study on knowledge work teams). 科学学与科学技术管理, (8): 92–96

  62. 张 潘仕 (Zhang Panshi) (1991). 关于大中型国营企业凝聚力的调查分析 (Investigation and analysis on large and middle stated-owned enterprises’ cohesiveness). 社会学研究, (5): 60–70

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Hai Li.

Additional information

__________

Translated from Nankai guanli pinglun 南开管理评论 (Nankai Business Review), 2010, (3): 136–149

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Keywords

  • organizational cohesion
  • scale development
  • validation