Group dynamics and Team Cohesion PDF

Preview

Summary

Dr Jamie Barker (Chapter 7 and 8)...

Description

Lucy Whitaker

Group dynamics and Team Cohesion

Mobilisation of effort and legacy of play – New Zealand All blacks o Team has a 78% all time rate

Why study Group Dynamics?   

Groups are pervasive Highly influential Sport offers (unique) possibilities for research: o Natural v lab settings o Outcome orientation: co-operation, conflict, pressure o Objective performance measures o Schafer (1966)

The difference between “Groups and “Teams Group

Team

o A collection of interacting individuals who have: o A Sense of shared purpose/common goals o Mutual influence

o “We-ness” Collective sense of identity/ Outgroup leader to an ingroup leader o Distinctive individual roles o Structured modes of communication o Norms- Social rules that guide members o Task interdependence … o Teamwork

Becoming a team – The Linear Perspective

Forming

Storming

Norming

Performing

o Tuckman & Jenkins (1977) o Forming – familiarisation, social comparisons, strengths and weaknesses, do I belong o Storming – Resistance: Leader, Group, Interpersonal, Infighting, establish role/status, communication

Lucy Whitaker

o Norming – Conflicts resolved, Solidarity, Cooperation, Sense of unity, common goals, Economy of Effort o Performing – Togetherness, Team Success, Problem Solving, Roles are defined, Test new ideas o Develops competence moves the group forward.

o Togetherness, common goal and agreed objectives, “Weness”

Conceptual Model of Cohesion (Carron, 1982) o Dynamic group, it is changing.

Lucy Whitaker

Antecedents Environmental Factors – Organisational climate, Professional/ Well established Leadership Factors – Democratic, Autocratic, reality’s, ego driven Personal Factors – individual differences, individual orientation, introvert, extrovert, high driven, ego orientated o Team Factors – group size, team stability, role clarity, distinctiveness, group productivity norm, group communication o Cohesion – Task Cohesion, Social Cohesion

o o o o

o Consequences o Group outcomes, team stability, performance effectiveness o Individual differences, behavioural and emotional consequences, performance effectiveness

Characteristics of Cohesion Multidimensional – Numerous factors cause a group to stick together, complex Dynamic – can change over time (particularly with success and failure) Instrumental - Groups stick together for different reasons

Types of Cohesion Task Cohesion – The degree to which members of a group work together to achieve common goals

Lucy Whitaker

o Can have a highly successful group with high levels of task cohesion with low social cohesion o High levels of elite performance – task cohesion is important

Social Cohesion – The degree to which members of a group like each other and enjoy one another’s company o Attraction to group o Group integration

Conceptual Framework of Group Effectiveness (Steiner, 1972)

o Under extreme pressure people drop off, underperform for big tournaments o Minimising coordination drops

Group process Losses: The Ringelmann Effect o Tendency for individual members of a group to become increasingly less productive as the size of the group increases

Lucy Whitaker

o o o o o o o o

Tug of war – 2 people 93% of their individual potential 3 people – 85% of their individual potential 8 people – 49% of their individual potential 2 possible explanations (Ingham et al., 1974) Motivational Loss Coordination Loss (Social Loafing) Motivation losses in particular that is a key insight to why group sizes get bigger actual productivity decreases

Causes of “Social Loafing” o “Free rider”: perception that their effort is (relatively) unimportant for the outcome o Minimising strategy: motivated to get by doing as little as possible o Allocation strategy: save best efforts for when most beneficial to self o False Perception that increased effort won’t be recognised.

o Counteracting “Social Loafing” o Carron (1988) o Emphasise the importance of individual contributions (identify and communicate) o Increase accountability (Performance statistics – made players more accountable) Group Environment Questionnaire o o o o

(Widmeyer, Brawley & Carron, 1985) Individual V Group Task and Social Cohesion Reliable, Valid measure

/ Antecedents: Team (squad) size

Lucy Whitaker

o 3 on 3 competitive recreational basketball o N=144 (84 males 60 females) o Team size: 3, 6 or 9 Found 1. Social cohesion highest for 6 2. ATG-Task decreased from 3 to 6 to 9 3. Performance best for 6, worst for 9

Antecedents: Exercise class size o o o o

(Widmeyer et al., 1990b) Small (5 to 17 members) Medium (18 to 26 members), Large (32 to 46 members) Attendance and retention better in small and large classes Perceived experience best in small classes

Antecedents: Role Clarity & Acceptance Formal roles o Dictated by the nature and structure of the organisation o Specific team and tactical roles Informal roles o Evolve from group dynamics or interactions

o o o o o

Strongly related to task cohesion (GI-T) in team sports (Brawley et al., 1987) Role clarity – r .38 Role acceptance .49 Role performance .43 Cohesiveness predicted role clarity and acceptance in ice hockey teams (Dawe & Carron, 1990

Antecedents: Team stability o Teams that have low turnover are more effective o Baseball league position r=-.55 (Theberge & Loy, 1976) o Spanish football League Division 1 and 2 (Short term bounce Lago-Penas, 2011)

Lucy Whitaker

o Dutch Premier League (1986-2004) 81 sackings, 212 performance dips o Does manager turnover improve performance?

The Cohesion – Performance Relationship Which came first … Cohesion or the egg? Moderators – sport type Carron et al. (2002) Meta – analysis of 46 studies in sport 164 effect sizes N – 9988 atheltes N – 1044 teams Found Overall relationship between cohesion and performance in sport was “Moderate to large” o ES + 0.66

o o o o o o o o

Task v Social Cohesion

Lucy Whitaker

Sport type -

Largest cohesion -performance effect being present in coactive sports Team Cohesion – better performance

Developing Team Cohesion 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Increase team distinctiveness/identity Increase social cohesiveness Clarify team gals Improve team communication Carron (1997,2007)

Building Cohesion with Team Goal Setting -

(Senecal et al., 2008) Team goal setting intervention N=86 High school basketball players Effect on team cohesion (GEQ) Selecting the team goals Establishing the target for the team goals Coaches remind players of the team’s goals Evaluation, feedback, and revaluation are essential for team goal-setting effectiveness

 Helped us play better as a team 68%

Lucy Whitaker

 More focused on common goals 42%  Enabled us to work together to reach goals 27%

Using Personal-Disclosure Mutual Sharing (PDMS) in Professional Soccer  Context: many new foreign players, lack of togetherness and effective communication (e.g understanding and cohesion_  The night before a league-cup semi final match players were asked to deliver a prepared 5 min speech in answer to the following questions:  Tell the group why you play football what bring to the team  Describe personal story help teammates understand you better  Some refused to do it (3) then at the end asked to deliver there’s through a translator  Players felt the intervention was worthwhile and benefitted the team by enhancing closeness (cohesion) understanding of teammates and communication  Successfully on cup competition the following year and senior players reported in the press it was partly down to their understanding, honesty and cohesion...