Group Composition PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Group Composition PDF

Description

Group Composition What is It? - The relationships among the characteristics of individuals who compose the group - The properties represented by the aggregate of persons who are members of a given group at a given time What kinds of resources can the members of a team posses? - Physical Characteristics Height, Weight, Ability - Social Characteristics  Experience, Education, Birthplace, Ethnicity - Psychological Characteristics Attitudes, Motives, Personality How Can These Resources Be Studied? 1) The amount of resources Total or Average (Ex. Never to many goal scorers) 2) Their Distribution or Heterogeneity Variation or Spread (Ex. Best singles tennis players do not make the best doubles teams) 3) Compatibility The Fit The Amount of Team Resources The Amount of Psychosocial Attributes: Teams vs Individuals - Team Sport Athletes More Extroverted, More Dependent on others, Less Sensitive - Individual Sport Athletes More Independent, Lower Anxiety Levels The Amount of Individual Ability: Sport Teams Jones Study - Examined the quality of resources and team success in sport - Baseball (RBI+ERA) r=0.94 - Football (PF vs PA) r=0.91 - Ladies/Mens Tennis (Singles Rankings) r=0.80/0.70 - Basketball (Rebounds, Points, Assists) r=0.60 How can group dynamics explain Jones’ Results? - Coach can have the greatest impact in Basketball - Why? Doing What? - Coaches maximize resources and minimize process losses Potential Productivity – Process Losses = Team Effectiveness (Resources) Baseball= Less Coordination = Few Chances for Process Losses Basketball= High Coordination= More Chances for process losses Variability in Team Resources

-

Refers to the Homogeneity (Composed of similar parts) versus Heterogeneity (Composed of Dissimilar Parts) in the characteristics of individual members of the group

Some Generalizations About Variability in Team Resources - Teams should posses both homo/heterogeneity in the characteristics of their members - HOMOgeneity in member personal characteristics contributes to enhanced communication - HETEROgeneity in member abilities contributes to enhanced team effectiveness The Compatibility in Group Resources Compatibility Defined - Mesh or Fit between individuals I attitudes, personality and/or skills - Mesh or fit between an individual and his or her group role - Mesh or fit between the individual and the demands of the task Coach-Athlete Relationship Defined - Coaches and Athletes cognitions, feelings and behaviours are mutually and causally interrelated Model (3 C’s) - Closeness Perception of being cared for, respected and trusted - Commitment Intention to remain in a dyadic relationship - Complementarity Coach and athlete acting cooperatively and effectively together Research - Task involving coach climate (Cooperative learning) positively associated with the 3C’s - Task cohesion and social cohesion related to the 3C’s Compatibility in Golf (Study) - 155 professional golfers: PGA Tour (n=114 male) - LPGA Tour (n=41 Females) - Compare individual performance to team performance - Individual match play tournament (Accenture match play championship) VS. Team match play tournament (Ryder Cup)

Task Types in Team Golf

-

Individual (Unitary) Task one individual achieves a task with the end result representing their own personal score Disjunctive Tasks The most competent team members score is selected to represent the ream score (Four Ball Match Play) Additive Tasks A summation of team members efforts represent the team score (Alternate shot match play)

Team Match Play - Singles Match Play Representative of an individual task in the team setting - Four Ball Match Play Representative of a disjunctive task - Alternate Shot Match Play Representative of an additive task Performance - Career winning percentages in both individual and team based match play were calculated Results, Individual vs Team - Golfers in a team situation play better compared to playing on their own, on average - Team setting changes social identity theory, do not want to let other people down, opposite of social loafing...