IIARD International Journal of Economics and Business Management (IJEBM )

E-ISSN 2489-0065
P-ISSN 2695-186X
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2018


Group Cohesiveness and Organizational Effectiveness of Telecommunications Companies in Port Harcourt, Nigeria

Ikemenjima, Osaki Sandra


Abstract


The study examined the relationship that exists between group cohesiveness and organizational effectiveness in telecommunication networks of Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The work analyzed the impact of cohesiveness and how it brings about effectiveness in telecommunication networks. In the course of testing the formulated hypotheses, data were drawn from sixty-three (63) samples using structured questionnaires and analyzed with the aid of the statistical package for social sciences for (SPSS) software adopting Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (PPMCC) technique. The result indicated that cohesiveness influences goals and productivity with a greater correlation coefficient to goals by a value of .537 to bring about effectiveness. The result also shows a positive and significant relationship between the variables. The study thereby concludes that properly planned and well implemented grouping of employees who work cohesively will bring about the accomplishment of goals and productivity for organizational effectiveness.



References:


Antle, M. J. & Capalbo, S.M. (1988).An introduction to recent development in production
theory and productivity measurement in Capalbo, S.M. and Antle, M. J. Agricultural
Productivity: Measure and Explanation Resources for the Future, Inc. Washington,
DC.

Cameron, K.S. (1983-1984).Critical questions in assessing organizational effectiveness,
Organisational Dynamics, 4(1), 66-80.

Coote, L.V, Price, E. & Ackfeldt, A-L (2004).An investigation into the antecedents of goal
congruence in retail service settings, The Journal of Services Marketing,16 (5), 563
579.

Etzioni, A. (1964).Modern organisations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J, Prentice Hall.
Hale, R. & Whitlam, P.(1998).Target setting and goal achievement: A practical guide for
managers, 2ndedn, Kogan Page, London, UK.

Janis Irving L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes.
2nd Edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Janis, I. L. & Leon, M. (1977). Decision making: a psychological analysis of conflict, choice,
and commitment. Free Press (New York, USA), 1977.

Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and
development project groups. Journal of Management, 18(3), 489–501.

Landgon, D. (1999).Objectives? Get over them, Training & Development, 52(2), 54-58.

Latham, G.P. (2004).The motivational benefits of goal-setting, The Academy of Management
Executive, 18(4), 126-130.

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance, Prentice
Hall, Inc, USA.
Luthans, F. (1995). Organisational behaviour, 7thedn, McGraw-Hill, Inc, Singapore.


Margaret, PC 1993, Why don?t use the research, Management Decision, 31(3), 48-54.

Michie, S. & West, M.A.(2004). Managing people and performance: An evidence based
framework applied to health service organisations. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 5/6(2), 91-111.

Mills, C. (2002).Performance management under the microscope, Singapore Human
Resources Institute,Singapore.

Mohr, L.B. (1971).Organisational technology and organisational structures, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 16(6), 444-59.

Price, J.L. (1968). Organisational effectiveness, Homewood, Ill: Richard D. Irwin, Price, J.L.
(1972).

Prokopenko, J. (l987). Productivity Management: A practical handbook. International labor
organization, Geneva.

Weick, K.E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Wonnacott, P. & Wonnacott, R. (1986).Economics, 3rd edition,McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York.

Xavier, S. (2002). Clear communications and feedback can improve manager and employee
effectiveness. Employment Relations Today, 29(2), 33-41.

Yutchman, E. & Seashore, S. (1967).A system resource approach to organizational
effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32(5), 891-903


DOWNLOAD PDF

Back