group and teamwork Flashcards
becoming a team- Tuckman and Jenkins 1977
1-forming (familiarisation/ social comparisons/ strengths and weaknesses/ do I belong?)
2-storming- (resistance: leader, group , interpersonal/ infighting/ establish role and status/ lots of communication)
3-norming- (conflicts resolved/ solidarity/ cooperation/ sense of unity/ common goals/ economy off= effort
4-performing- (togetherness/team success/ problem solving/ roles are defined/ test new ideas)
group cohesion
dynamic/ prone to change
tendency of group to stick together and remain united in pursuit of objectives
multidimensional- numerous factors cause group cohesion
conceptual model of cohesion Carron 1982- antecedents and consequence
*ancecedents
environmental factors- organisation climate
- personal factors- individual needs, orientation, identity, and individual differences
- leadership factors- leadership style (democratic,?)/ coach athlete personalities
- team factors- distinctiveness/ group norm/ culture/ group size/ stability/ communication/ role clarity and acceptance - must accept and understand their roles
cohesion- above determines task cohesion and social cohesion
consequences2
2- group outcomes- team stability
2- individual outcomes-
types of cohesion (carron)
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 each others company
conceptual framwork of group effectiveness steiner 1971
actual productivity= potential productivity minus group process losses
potential productivity- players ability, knowledge and skills
group process losses- faulty group processes, motivation losses, coordination losses
coordination losses=e.g. enither go to the ball as each think the other wilo
group process losses- the Ringelemann effect
Ingham study
tendency for individual members if a group to become increasingly less productive as the size of the group increases
group of 2- 93% of individual potential
group of 3- 85%
group of 8- 49%
Ingham et al 1974- as we add more people there is a motivation and coordination loss - could be due to social loafing
causes of social loafing
‘free rider’- perception that their effort is unimportant for the outcome e.g. not caring about defending as a striker
‘minimising strategy’ motivated to get by doing as little as possible
‘allocation strategy’ save best efforts for when most beneficial to self
False? perception that increased effort wont be recognised
how to counteract social loafing?
- emphasise the importance of individual contributions (identify + communicate)
- increase accountability-everyone can become recognised and everyone is accountable e.g. use of GPS to track distance,
Widmeyer, Brawley, Carron 1985- group environment questionnaire
reliable valid measure of group cohesion
assesses task and social cohesion and individual vs group reasons to why we are attracted to that group
shows where issues in group cohesion are so you can start to develop skills to improve it.
involves definitions of
group integration= each members perception of closeness, bonding, and degree of unity
individual attraction=
Antecedents- Team (squad) size
Widmeyer et al 1990 study
3 in 3 competition in basketball. team sizes 3, 6, or 9.
FOUND- social cohesion highest for 6
ATG- task decreased from 3 to 6 to 9
performance best for 6, worst for 9
Antecedents - role clarity and acceptance
Formal roles- dictated by the nature and structure of the organisation. Specific team and tactical roles
Informal roles- evolve from group dynamics and interactions (evolution of roles begin like this e.g. the one who creates the playlist for the changing rooms)
Role clarity and acceptance strongly related to task cohesion in team sports(Brawley et al 1987)- high role clarity and acceptancy means high task cohesion and role performance.
Antecedents- team stability
teams that have low turnover are more effective- low turnover= same staff and players/ consistency in players and staff
keeping a manager may increase stability than having lots of different ones/ constantly sacking them (turnover of manager)
e.g. lago-penas 2011- short term bounce (bit more effort from players when new manager comes in but this wears off after a while but rarely actually improve stats than old manager)
The cohesion- performance relationship
Carron et al 2002
Effect size = 0.66 high effect size,
A moderate to large relationship between cohesion and performance
direction of relationship- similar both ways
developing team cohesion- Carron (1997-2007)
1- increase team distinctiveness/ identity
2- increase social cohesiveness
3- clarify team goals
4- improve team communication
- via team goal setting intervention (Senecal et al 2008)- Team goal setting intervention= improved performance
PDMS- how to develop cohesion further
-doing personal disclosure mutual sharing (PDMS) in sport- disclosing personal information improves group cohesion and group communication, huge sense of self and identity within the group after this
e.g. may ask why you play the sport or a personal story that will help players understand you-
this creates a sense of knowing players better and develops good relationships between players
