Organisational Cohesion: What It Is, What It’s Not, and Why It’s Important

At FFC we define organisational cohesion as the degree of unity, collaboration, and mutual support across an organisation. We believe cohesion reflects how closely aligned individuals and teams are with the organisation’s values, goals, and culture. It serves as the glue that binds members together, fostering an environment where everyone works towards a common purpose and feels part of a unified whole. The concept is crucial for creating a resilient, innovative, and high-performing organisation. We also believe there are things cohesion is not, and we list them in the below to help avoid some common misconceptions.

What is Organisational Cohesion?

Organisational cohesion encompasses several key elements:

1.        Aligned Values and Culture: A cohesive organisation is one where the values and culture are not just stated but lived and embodied by its members. This alignment between stated values and actual behaviour creates a strong sense of identity and belonging among employees (Chatman & O'Reilly, 2016). Culture and values are multifaceted, encompassing both those shaped by life experiences and those influenced by regional and national cultures. These factors contribute to conscious and unconscious ambiguity that affects the alignment between lived experiences and aspirational corporate values.

2.    Shared Vision and Goals: A cohesive organisation possesses a clear and compelling vision that is communicated effectively across all levels. Employees understand the organisation’s purpose and how their roles contribute to achieving its goals. This shared vision fosters alignment and ensures that everyone is working in the same direction (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Ensuring the organisations vision and goals are clearly communicated across the depth and breadth of the organisation is key, as is relating them to each role within the organisation. How does each individual and team contribute to achieving the overall goals of the organisation?

3.    Strong Interpersonal Relationships: Cohesion is built on trust, respect, and positive relationships among employees. When individuals feel connected to their colleagues and trust them, they are more likely to collaborate, share ideas, and support each other. These strong interpersonal relationships are the foundation of teamwork and cooperation (Beal et al., 2003). We believe that trust and psychological safety go hand in hand. Being able to bring a diverse perspective to the conversation should be met with curiosity, all to often however it is seen as non-conformance. Without a psychologically safe space to work there is little opportunity to build the trust required for cohesion.

4.  Effective Communication: Open and transparent communication is critical for cohesion. It ensures that information flows freely within the organisation, reducing misunderstandings and fostering a culture of openness and inclusion. When communication is effective, employees feel informed, valued, and empowered to contribute (Morgeson et al., 2010). Communicating with empathy is key to effective communication in organisations. How could your mode, style, and timing be impacting the way others perceive you and the messages you send. How do you actively listen to others to understand their pespective and fully understand their contribution?

Benefits of Organisational Cohesion

The benefits of organisational cohesion are numerous and can significantly impact an organisation’s performance and growth:

1.     Better Customer Relationships: Cohesion within an organisation can also extend to its external relationships. When employees are aligned and work well together, they are better able to deliver consistent and high-quality service to customers. This consistency builds trust and strengthens relationships with customers, leading to increased customer loyalty and satisfaction (Bowen & Schneider, 2014).

2.     Enhanced Collaboration and Innovation: Cohesion fosters a culture of collaboration, where employees work together to solve problems and generate new ideas. In a cohesive environment, individuals feel safe to express their thoughts and take risks, which is essential for innovation. This collaborative spirit can lead to the development of new products, services, and processes that drive organisational growth (Sawyer, 2007).

3.     Improved Performance and Productivity: When an organisation is cohesive, employees are aligned with the organisation’s goals and work efficiently towards achieving them. This alignment reduces duplication of effort, minimises conflicts, and increases overall productivity. Additionally, cohesive teams are better at managing challenges and adapting to changes, enhancing organisational resilience and performance (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).

4.     Increased Employee Engagement: When employees feel connected to their organisation and colleagues, they are more likely to be engaged in their work. Engaged employees are more productive, motivated, and committed to the organisation’s success. This increased engagement can lead to higher job satisfaction, lower turnover rates, and a more positive work environment (Harter et al., 2002).

5.     Stronger Employee Retention: A cohesive work environment is one where employees feel valued, respected, and part of a community. This sense of belonging increases job satisfaction and reduces the likelihood of employees leaving the organisation. High retention rates save costs associated with turnover and help maintain continuity and stability (Hom et al., 2017).

What Organisational Cohesion Is Not

While organisational cohesion is essential for success, it is important to clarify what it is not:

1.     Cohesion is Not Conformity: Cohesion does not mean that everyone in the organisation thinks or acts the same way. In fact, diversity of thought is crucial for innovation and problem-solving. A cohesive organisation encourages diverse perspectives while ensuring that everyone is aligned with the overarching goals and values. The key is to balance unity with diversity, allowing different viewpoints to coexist within a shared framework (Jehn et al., 1999).

2.     Cohesion is Not Groupthink: Groupthink occurs when the desire for harmony or conformity results in irrational or dysfunctional decision-making. In a cohesive organisation, critical thinking and constructive dissent are encouraged. Employees should feel comfortable challenging ideas and offering alternative solutions without fear of reprisal. Cohesion should enhance decision-making by incorporating diverse perspectives, not stifling them (Janis, 1982).

3.   Cohesion is Not an Absence of Conflict: In any organisation, conflict is inevitable. Cohesion does not mean that there will be no disagreements or differences of opinion. Instead, it means that conflicts are managed constructively and do not undermine the organisation’s unity. In a cohesive environment, conflicts are resolved through open communication and mutual respect, leading to stronger relationships and better outcomes (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).

4.     Cohesion is Not a Static State: Cohesion is dynamic and requires ongoing effort to maintain. It is not something that, once achieved, remains constant. Organisations must continually nurture cohesion by reinforcing shared values, fostering strong relationships, and ensuring effective communication. This ongoing process is essential for adapting to changes and maintaining a cohesive culture over time (Tannenbaum et al., 2012).

Organisational cohesion is a vital component of a successful and resilient organisation. It brings together shared vision, strong relationships, effective communication, and aligned values to create a unified workforce that drives performance and growth. The benefits of cohesion, including increased engagement, collaboration, innovation, and customer satisfaction, are significant. However, it is crucial to understand that cohesion is not about conformity, groupthink, or the absence of conflict. It is a dynamic process that requires continuous effort and attention. By fostering cohesion, organisations can create a strong foundation for long-term success and navigate the challenges of an ever-changing business environment.

References

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.

Bowen, D. E., & Schneider, B. (2014). A service climate synthesis and future research agenda. Journal of Service Research, 17(1), 5–22.

Chatman, J. A., & O'Reilly, C. A. (2016). Paradigm lost: Reinvigorating the study of organizational culture. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 199-224.

De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.

Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 530–545.

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741-763.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.

Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39.

Sawyer, K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. Basic Books.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social psychology of intergroup relations, 33–47.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 2-24.