Group performance has been an important topic as evidenced by an extensive literature review that has supports a positive relationship between group cohesion and performance. Social network researchers have also found similar relationships between cohesion and group performance using social network density as a proxy for cohesion. The traditional cohesion construct is measured using an attitudinal instrument that relies on member perceptions that are aggregated at the group level. The density construct, on the other hand, is based on social network relations which are based on behaviors and actual member interactions and relationships. Considering these differences, although both cohesion measures have been shown to predict group performance, it is important to understand their subtle differences in order for leaders to accurately understand how to influence each. A study of 672 students in 48 groups provided empirical evidence supporting a positive relationship between task cohesion and performance, while also a negative relationship was found for social cohesion and friendship network density relating to performance. Results also indicate a significant relationship between group cohesion and social network density suggesting that social network density could be used as a proxy for group cohesion.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.