4: Group Dynamics and Team Cohesion Flashcards
groups vs teams
group = collection of interacting individuals who have a shared purpose/goal and mutual influence
team = collective sense of identity, individual roles, structured modes of communication, social rules, task interdependence (teamwork)
becoming a team
linear process with 4 phases
forming - familiarise themselves, gain sense of belonging
storming - establish roles, communication rules develop, likely to be some form of resistance
norming - cooperation, conflicts resolved, unity, common goals
performing - togetherness, success, able to test new ideas
group cohesion
“a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in pursuit of its instrumental objective and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs”
conceptual model of cohesion
3 factors influence team factors: environmental, personal and leadership factors
team factors feed into cohesion: either task or social
cohesion leads to successful group and individual outcomes
characteristics of cohesion
multidimensional - numerous factors cause a group to stick together
dynamic - can change over time (particularly with success or 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
social cohesion: the degree to which members of a group like each other and enjoy one another’s company
conceptual framework of group effectiveness
actual productivity = potential productivity - group process losses
potential productivity: relevant resources as well as player’s abilities, skills and knowledge
group process losses: faulty group processes, motivation losses, coordination losses
group process losses: the Ringelmann effect
tendency for individual members of a group to become increasingly less productive as the size of the group increases
2 people expend 93% of their potential effort
3 people 85%
multiple person group 49%
more people causes motivational loss (social loafing) and/or coordination issues (more people is more individual differences)
causes of social loafing
social loafing = putting in less effort when judged as part of a group
free rider - perception that their effort is relatively unimportant for the outcome
minimising strategy - motivated to get by doing as little as possible
allocation strategy - save best effort for when most beneficial to self
false perception that increased effort won’t be recognised
counteracting social loafing
emphasis the important of individual contributions - try to craft an identify and communicate
increase accountability e.g. heart rate vests, show data to all players
group environment questionnaire GEQ
general questionnaire used to understand people’s strengths with different aspects of cohesion
individual attractions to the group - social
individual attraction to the group - task
group integration - social
group integration - task
antecedents: team size
team size effects cohesion levels
for recreational basketball teams size 3, 6 and 9
social cohesion was highest for 6
attraction to group (task) decreased as size grew
performance best for 6 and worst for 9
role clarity and acceptance
formal roles: dictated by nature and structure or organisation, specific team and tatical roles
informal toles: evolve from group dynamics and interactions
role clarity and acceptance strong related to task cohesion (group interaction-task) in team sports
role clarity effect (.38), role acceptance (.49) and role performance (.43) meaning they’re important but don’t solve everything
cohesiveness predicted role clarity and acceptance in ice hockey teams
team stability
teams that have a lower turnover are generally more effective - very few ‘employees’ leave each year
new manager usually results in psychological short term bounce for 6-10 games but no long term effect of stability
new manager usually never out performs old manager if they have same organisational climate
cohesion-performance relationship
moderate to large relationship between cohesion and performance of about 0.66
meta-analysis of 46 studies, 9988 athletes, 1044 teams found slightly larger effect size of cohesion to performance than performance to cohesion
task cohesion stronger relationship to performance than social
