Group dynamics Flashcards
Group
A collection of individuals who have a sense of shared goals
Team
Have a sense of ‘we-ness”, with distinctive individual roles, structured of communincation and unique norms
Group formation theory stages
(FSNP)
- Forming
- Storming
- Norming
- Performing
Group formation Theory: Forming
Group Members familiarise themselves with each other & set ground rule
Engage in social comperison with the assesing each others strengths and weakness
Looks at belonging on different roles
Coaches role in Forming
Give directions
Clarify the roles of the positions
Encourages participation to not befriend the athlete due to the need to become apart of the team
Group formation Theory: Storming
Members resist control by group leaders and show hostility
Individuals/cliqques questions the position of authority of the coach
Resist the control of the group
Some may try to aquire impartant roles such as head coach
Coaches role in Storming
to embrace the storm of chaos as the athletes do want to be coached
Providing emotional support to help manage the athletes emotions
Group formation Theory: Norming
Members work together developing close relationships and feelings of camaraderie
It switches the hostility to cooperation and solidarity
the team works together towards a common goal than their individual agenda
Group Cohesion behins to develop
Coaches role in Norming
Coach needs to continue with emotional support
Aim to empower athletes
Be a medium for conflict resolution
Group formation Theory: Performing
Team members work towards getting the job done
Work without conflict to achieve shared goals and little objectives
Little need for external supervision
Group is more motivated
Structual issues are resolved
Interpersonal relationships stabilise
Roles are well defined
Coaches role in performing
Delegates responsibility to athletes
Empower athletes to lead
Encourage group to be facilitating
aims at no over coaching
Antecedents: Team / Squad Size (Widmeyer et al., 1990): focus
Antecedents: Team / Squad Size (Widmeyer et al., 1990): results
Found
Social cohesion was highest for 6 person team size
ATG-Task decreased from 3 to 6 to 9
Performance was best with 6 team size for 9 team size
Further Evidence (r value) for team sports (Brawley et al., 1987)
RC, RA, RP
Role Clarity
.38
Role Acceptance
.49
Role Performance
.43
* Cohesiveness predicted role clarity and acceptance in ice hockey teams (Dawe & Carron, 1990)
The cohesion performance relationship
Causation – one event is the result of the occurrence of the other event.
In this case – is it that levels of cohesion effect performance OR performance effects the levels of cohesion
Team cohesion = better performance
The cohesion performance relationship: statistics
Meta analysis of 46 studies in sport
164 effect sizes
9988 athletes
1044 teams
Overall relationship between cohesion and performance in sport was “moderate to large”
How to develop team cohesion
CC & ID
Increase social Cohesiveness
Improve team communication
Developing Team Cohesion requires creating identity and distinctiveness
Team goals Selection
Athletes are provided with a list of performance indicies
from the list athletes indentify the ost important areas to establish their team goals
Subunits of athletes agree on the four most important indicies to be set as goals
Establishing the target for the team goals
Each athlete independently identifies the target levels for each of the four teams outcomes
Subunits of five athletes agree on the target levels
the team as a whole then agrees on the target levls
Coaches remind players of the teams goals
The goals are posted in the teams locker room
Evaluation, feedback, and revaluation are essential for team goal-setting effectiveness
The sport psychology consultant meets with the team to review and discuss the team’s goals after each block of three games.
Modifications to the team’s goals or target levels were made if
deemed necessary.
Group Cohesion & Effectiveness Carron Brawley & Widmeyer (1988, p.213)
stick together/goals
“A dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs”
Conceptual Framework of Group Effectiveness (Steiner, 1972)
people and resources
The relationship between individual abilities or resources on a team and how team members interact
Actual Productivity
Actual Productivity
= Potential Productivity - Group Process Losses
Actually Productivity:
the team performance at a given time and refers to the extent of successful interaction
Potential Productivity
maximum capability of the group when cohesiveness appears at it s strongest.
Group Process Losses
faulty
Faulty Group Processes
the factors which can go wrong with team performance.
This can detract and impede cohesion and possibly detract from the potential of the team.
Group Process losses: Motivation Losses
occurs when team members do not give 100% effort.
Could let others carry the team.
Group Process losses: Co-ordination Losses
occurs when the timing between teammates is off or when ineffective strategies are used
Ringleman Effect
size
As group size increases there may be a decline of individual effort and eventual productivity caused by social loafing
Social Loafing
reduction
Reduction in an individual’s efforts when working in a group setting
Causes of Social Loafing
Free riders, mininimising and Allocation
Free riders
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 efforts for when most beneficial to self
Antecendanctd for conceptual modal of Cohesion (PELT)
Personal factors
-individual orietation
- individual differences
Environmental factors
0 organizational climat of the team
- contractional responsibility
Leeadership factors
- leadership style
- coach/athlete personalities
Team factors
- Group size
- Role clarity
Consequences for conceptual modal of Cohesion (GI
Group Outcomes
- Team Stability
- Performance effectiveness
Individual Outcomes
- Behavioural & emotional consequences
- Performance effictiveness
