Lecture 5: Group dynamics and team cohesion Flashcards
why study group dynamics?
- Groups are persuasive
- Highly influential
- Sport offers (unique?) possibilities for research:
○ Natural vs lab settings
○ Outcome orientation: cooperation, conflict, pressure
○ Objective performance measures
– Shafer (1966)
groups
- A collection of interacting individuals who have:
○ A sense of shared purpose/common goal(s)
○ Mutual influence
team
- ‘we-ness’ - collective sense of identity
- Distinctive individual roles
- Structured modes of communication
- Norms - social rules that guide members
- Task interdependence… teamwork
process to becoming a team (linear perspective)
Tuckman and Jenkins (1977)
Forming –> storming –> norming –> performing
forming
- Familiarisation
- Social comparisons
- Strengths/weaknesses
- Do I belong?
storming
- Resistance: leader, group, interpersonal
- Infighting
- Establish role/status
- Communication
norming
- Conflicts resolved
- Solidarity
- Cooperation
- Sense of unity
- Common goals
- Economy of effort
performing
- Togetherness
- Team success
- Problem solving
- Roles are defined
- Test new ideas
group cohesion
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 objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs' - Carron, brawly and Widmeyer (1988) Tells us; - Can shift - Influenced by lots of factors - Common pursuit everyone has - Sense of satisfaction and enjoyment
conceptual model of cohesion (Carron, 1982)
4 factors influencing whether a team will be cohesive or not:
- Environmental factors: contractual responsibility, organisational climate
2. Leadership factors: leadership style (democratic), coach/athlete personalities
3. Personal factors: individual orientation, individual differences
4. Team factors: distinctiveness, group productivity norm, group communication, group size, team stability, role clarity and acceptance
characteristics of cohesion
- Multidimensional - Numerous factors cause a group to stick together
- Dynamic - Can change over time (particularly with success and failure)
- Instrumental - Groups stick together for different reasons
types of cohesion
task
social
task cohesion
- Task cohesion: the degree to which members of a group work together to achieve common goals.
social cohesion
- Social cohesion: the degree to which members of a group like each other and enjoy one another’s company.
Conceptual framework of group effectiveness (Steiner, 1972)
Actual productivity = potential productivity - group process losses
potential productivity
‘relevant sources’
player’s abilities, knowledge and skills (mental and physical)
group process losses
faulty group processes
motivation losses
coordination losses
the Ringelmann effect
relates to group process losses
- Tendency for individual members of a group to become increasingly less productive as the size of the group increases. - Ingham et al., 1974 - used tug of war to test Ringelmann effect - more people = people didn't work as hard.
causes of social loafing
free rider
minimising strategy
allocation strategy
false perception that increased effort won’t be recognised
free rider
- ‘free rider’: perception that their effort is (relatively) unimportant for the outcome.
minimising strategy
- ‘minimising strategy’: motivated to get by doing as little as possible.
allocation strategy
- ‘allocation strategy’: save best efforts for then the most beneficial to self.
counteracting social loafing (Carron, 1988)
- Emphasise the importance of individual contributions (identify + communicate)
- Increase accountability
group environment questionnaire
- Widmeyer, Brawley and Carron, 1985
- Individual vs group
- Task and social cohesion
- Reliable, valid measure
antecedents: team size research
- Widmeyer et al., 1990
- 3 on 3 competitive recreational basketball
- N = 144 (84 males and 60 females)
- Team size: 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 organisations
○ Specific team and tactical roles- Informal roles
○ Evolve from group dynamics or interactions - Strongly related to task cohesion (GI-T) n team sports (Brawley et al., 1987)
- Cohesiveness predicted role clarity and acceptance in ice hockey teams (Dawe and Carron , 1990)
- Informal roles
antecedents: team stability
- Teams that have a low turnover are more effective
○ Baseball league position r=-0.55 (Theberge and Loy, 1976)
developing team cohesion
- Increase team distinctiveness/identity
- Increase social cohesiveness
- Clarify goals
- Improve team communication
research into enhancing team cohesion
- Building cohesion with team goal setting (Senecal et al., 2008)
- Team goal setting with intervention
- N=86 high school basketball players
- Effect on team cohesion (GEQ)