Understanding Teamwork and Cohesion in Sports: Factors and Implications for Performance, Lecture notes of Dynamics

Download Understanding Teamwork and Cohesion in Sports: Factors and Implications for Performance and more Lecture notes Dynamics in PDF only on Docsity!

Running Head: DEFINING TEAMWORK 1

Defining Teamwork:

An Analysis of Group Dynamics in Sports

Sarah Hoffman Senior Thesis Haverford College Spring 2013 Advisor: Ben Le

Abstract

This paper explores sports psychology and more specifically the topic of teamwork. It investigates and reviews the current relevant literature in both social and sports psychology disciplines. Theoretical models of group dynamics, cohesion, and coaching are included, forming the framework from which to create a new operational definition for teamwork, something previously missing from this field of research. Teamwork is defined as all members of a sports team having a shared and deeply imbedded understanding of: team identity, team philosophy, individual roles, and performance outcome goals. Additionally, this paper applies the new definition to a coaching intervention model – a stepwise program that explains how coaches can effectively build teamwork that leads to positive performance outcomes. This definition and model provide the basis from which research in this field of study should continue. A specific way to measure teamwork as well as adaptations for specificities like level and type of sport should also be considered in future work. This paper is intended to serve as an innovative application of sports and social psychology that not only expands the field of literature, but also serves as an accessible and useful tool from which athletes and coaches can benefit.

athletic and mental potential contributing to peak athletic performance. It is for these reasons that I believe it is an important area of study that should continue to be studied.

It is widely accepted that psychological research with an emphasis on sports first emerged in 1898 with the work of Norman Triplett who studied factors that made cyclists most successful in performance. His findings of “dynamogenic factors” is actually quite relevant to this project as he ultimately concluded that working with and the presence of others in competition “served to release additional energy stores which could improve performance” (Lavallee et al., 2004). While the field has expanded upon Triplett’s work in numerous ways since that first experiment at the turn of the nineteenth century, his study provides the first example of a sports-focused psychological project. The research and studies in sports psychology thus far have yielded so many important findings, but it is still a relatively new field with exciting opportunities for building upon previous work as well as making new discoveries that can, by utilizing psychology, aid the sports world in innovative and exciting ways.

I hope this project serves as an ambassador for the importance of sports psychology and its continual development. A comprehensive study into what teamwork is and how it can be best implemented in the sports setting by coaches is important not only to sports personnel but the more academic psychology community as well. Sports serve as the perfect venue to study social psychology and put some of the theoretical models of social psychology to a test in a “real world” setting. Many social psychology studies have been tested in other group settings like juries and various work place contexts, but sports is a compelling arena to identify new pieces of the figurative social psychology puzzle for the greater sake of the progress of psychology research. This study into teamwork specifically serves as an important insight into group dynamics through the example of sports teams and how they can achieve the highest level of

performance as a group. While social psychology serves as the basis for much of the sports- specific research, I hope this project shows that the sports setting can inform, expand, and yield novel findings of many of the social psychology models as well.

Sports psychology is, as mentioned, also intended to be accessible and useful at a very practical level. Sports play a huge role in the lives of so many people and this field intends to help them in direct ways. While there is the theoretical basis for all of the models that emerge out of sports psychology, they are created with the intention of having an active and immediately useful role for the athletes and other sports personnel they were intended. The work of sports psychology aims to be an aid to athletes in the same way that they maximize their resources in terms of training, nutrition, and the other more physical aspects of sport. The mental side of sports is just as important (if not more!) and thanks to the growing work of sports psychology, athletes, coaches, and other individuals of all levels can maximize their “mental game” and utilize the ways that psychology can be the difference in accomplishing their athletic goals. A study into teamwork specifically is extremely applicable as so many athletes compete as a part of a team, yet there still isn’t a clearly defined way to explain what “teamwork” is! By developing a definition, ways to improve it via the role of the coach can also be introduced – all for the purpose of maximizing performance and helping athletes achieve their goals, particularly those that are collective team goals.

What is teamwork?

I find teamwork to be of particular interest as it can be found across many different contexts – there are groups of people working towards common goals in every venue of professional life – yet there is something very unique about how teamwork functions in the

analysis then provides the basis for the new definition and corresponding coaching intervention model regarding teamwork – how to define and measure it as a function of sport performance. Another potential outcome of this project could be the outline and compilation of a “coach’s handbook” which outlines the ways in which teamwork can be built, fostered, and improved, presented in a way that is both accessible and convenient to coaches.

Although much of this project is a literature review surveying the research about teamwork –a key topic in the sports psychology field – the novel piece that emerges is a starting point for new research and experimental directions. As mentioned, an empirical and operational definition of the encompassing term “teamwork” has not, as of now, been developed fully in the sports psychology research. Additionally, developing an accessible handbook for coaches presents a new model that shows the unique relationship between teamwork and coaching.

The coaching intervention model that explains how coaches can actually build teamwork is a direct reflection of the novel teamwork definition that is a product of this research project. I believe this is an important outcome as it suggests an open pathway for new directions of research in sports and social psychology revolving around the unique team and group dynamics that exist in the sports setting. Additionally, the coaching intervention model presents something new to the coaching psychology field and explores the ways that coaches can make a real difference and play an important role in enhancing their teams’ performance outcomes via effective teamwork.

Social Psychology: Group Dynamics

Important parallels can be drawn from different factions of psychology, and I will connect developments in social psychology to the sports setting before getting into the theoretical models based more directly in the sports psychology literature. The social psychology models form the basis for and the components of group and team dynamics and the foundations of “cohesion.”

One of the definitive theories is social identity theory. This theoretical understanding of intergroup relations states that “the more closely an individual identifies with and defines themselves in terms of group membership, the more inclined they are to maximize differences between in-group and out-group” (Tajfel, 1982). That is, the more an individual feels a sense of belonging in a group- whether it be in the workplace or an athletic team, the more effort they will give on a personal level towards the group efforts to set their group apart from any other group. Lavallee and his colleagues (2004) relate this to sports teams, explaining that this principle is reflected in competitiveness and effort towards common goals. The more individual team members identify with the collective team or club identity, the better the performance results will be. It is important to note, however, that this correlation has not been investigated in-depth in the sports psychology field yet as an operational definition and specific measures of “teamwork” are needed – aspects that this project seeks to supply.

While Tajfel’s social identity theory (1982) was developed without the sports setting in mind; it has important relevance to developing a definition for teamwork. As stated, the more an individual identifies with the group they are a part of, the more effort they will contribute towards maximizing differences between in-group and out-group. So, in the sports setting- this

“optimization.” Maximization refers to tasks that require quantity from each team member rather than “optimization” – referring to tasks that need quality and precision from each team member. Taking these categorizations into account, Steiner classifies group tasks into five specific types which organizes and explains the types of group and individual contributions necessary:

1. Additive tasks: ‐ These tasks are divisible and maximizing. They require the sum of individual contributions – for example, a rugby scrum. 2. Disjunctive tasks: ‐ These tasks involve one group solution which could be achieved by one or any number of group members – for example, a mountaineering expedition. 3. Conjunctive tasks: ‐ These tasks require every individual in the group to complete a given task individually in order for it to be finished collectively – for example, a relay race. 4. Compensatory tasks: ‐ These tasks are dependent on an average of each member’s contribution – for example, ice skating judges (this type of task is not common in sports, but frequent in sports judging where average scores are compiled for a final collective score). 5. Discretionary tasks: ‐ These tasks involve group members collaborating and combining efforts in order to achieve a task or reach a final solution – for example, a treasure hunt.

This task classification as set forth by social combination theory makes some important distinctions regarding how groups work to achieve tasks and how different types of tasks affect the importance and type of individual contributions toward group goals. Another theory which takes some of these same factors into account is social facilitation theory (Strauss, 2002). This model explains the effect and influence of others’ presence on an individual’s performance. This is especially relevant when looking at how individuals (team members) perform in a group or team.

This model is mediated by both task difficulty level and presence of others. Tasks with low demands and dominant, well-learned responses (“easy”) are facilitated while “hard” tasks – with high demands and non-dominant responses are inhibited. These effects are then heightened by the presence (and known evaluation) of others. In other words, if a task is easy and you are working in a group and/or know others are evaluating your work, you will do a better job than if the task is difficult and you are working alone (Strauss, 2002).

This complex theoretical model is important in working towards a teamwork definition for many reasons. For one, it seems to fundamentally defy the idea that teamwork is a positive correlate of higher performance outcomes. The more sports-specific theories that explain this contradiction will be introduced later, but it is important to see some of the differences that exist between social and sports psychology. It also breaks down and provides the framework for how individuals perform on different types (with varying levels of difficulty) of tasks in the group setting. It shows that there is not simply one pattern of behavior for performance as a part of a group, but rather many different factors that are crucial in determining how groups will best function – via the “teamwork” of individuals. As shown as examples in the five task types classification, different types of sports correspond to different types of group tasks. This

measure it. These factors are directly applicable to sports and can be adjusted as needed to align with the dynamic and constantly changing environment of a sports team. In fact, sports-specific theories draw specifically from these factors identified by Karau and Williams.

In general, social loafing is an interesting platform when considering the setting of a sports team. This well-researched and proven theory that individuals do not contribute the same maximum effort they do if they were working alone seems to be inaccurate for how sports teams function – specifically the positive effects of teamwork. In the next section, this will be elaborated on in great detail as more recent theories developed by and for the sports context provide answers for how to counteract the effects of social loafing and why cohesion on a sports team is different than other groups of people for which social loafing has been shown to apply.

In the same realm of social psychology research, the social exchange theory (Homans,

1961. says that people are motivated to exert minimum effort for maximum reward. This is otherwise known as the allocation strategy. This coincides with both the social impact theory and social loafing ideologies. While these models clearly, based in evidence, apply to group dynamics, there is something unique about the sports setting that influences the way team dynamics unfold. I would argue – and through my own definition will show – that the positive outcomes of teamwork in the sports setting serve to motivate individual athletes to actually contribute maximum individual effort toward group efforts. The social exchange notion that we want maximum rewards for minimum effort is important to understand, however, as it is a key piece contributing to why sports is different – why athletes are motivated to contribute maximum effort for maximum reward. Additionally, as part of a team – sports psychologists have determined ways to motivate athletes in such ways that they want to contribute maximum

individual effort for maximum team rewards of which they identify with and feel like an important part.

Sports Psychology: Team Dynamics

There is significant work in the more specific field of sports psychology investigating this encompassing realm of “teamwork” and team cohesion. Much is rooted in the social psychology principles previously explicated, but there are certainly exceptions and modifications for the sports setting for which these principles need to be adjusted. Sometimes novel theoretical models are created to explain the unique types of interactions and situations that arise in sports and in this case, on sports teams.

Cota and his colleagues (1995) investigated team cohesion and team dynamics in sports. Their most important conclusion and finding was a key distinction between task cohesion and social cohesion. Task cohesion refers to how well a group operates as a working and complete unit. It is also called “group integration” and takes into account the group or team members’ perception of the group or team as a whole. Social cohesion on the other hand is defined by how well team members like each other. High social cohesion would be marked by a strong team identity and positive and strong feelings of personal attraction to the group by each individual team member (Cota, Evans, Dion, Kilik, & Longman, 1995).

Additionally, Cota and his colleagues (1995) dissected team cohesion further and determined primary and secondary dimensions of cohesion. The primary dimension of cohesion is marked by views of individual group members and is, most simplistically, the group or team’s ability to resist social disruption. The secondary dimension of cohesion refers to the “features of

(common for sports like football or baseball, among others) could be a detriment to having team cohesion, but having low intergroup conflict is another aspect of “situational factors” which could counteract such situational and often unavoidable aspects of sport.

The second factor category is personal factors. This includes personal attributes of team members including gender, maturity level, shared perceptions, individual satisfaction, similarity among other team members, and all other personal attributes (Carron, 1982). The third factor group of Carron’s (1982) cohesion factors is leadership factors. This takes into account the coach, captain and other leadership positions’ behavior and styles, communication, coach to athlete relationships, and leadership decision-making style. Ultimately, the coach, captains, and other leadership figures of a sports team are going to play a major role in dictating the dynamics on the team. I am especially interested in how coaches can foster strong teamwork.

The fourth factor category is team factors – a comprehensive slate of factors grouped together as they involve the team dynamics as a whole – intergroup relationships, task characteristics, ability, achievement orientation, homogeneity, intragroup cooperation, experience level, group norms, stability, and team maturity (Carron, 1982). This is perhaps the most important factor that contributes to successful team cohesion development as it revolves around the complex relationships on a collective team.

Analysis of many studies reveals and confirms that there is a strong positive correlation with team cohesion and performance. That is, having strong team cohesion is often present with the team’s success and positive performance outcomes. However, a causal link has not been determined. It is unclear whether high performance causes higher cohesion or if it is the initial strong cohesion that leads to the high performance. In two important analyses – Mullen and

Cooper (1994) and Slater and Sewell (1994) – this missing piece, the causal link is investigated. Mullen and Cooper (1994) concluded that there is a slight lean towards performance causing greater cohesion. The work of Slater and Sewell (1994) confirms this finding in their more specific study of collegiate hockey teams, but there is still not enough evidence to make any sweeping claims about the direction of this correlation. Both these studies emphasized that it is more of a circular and reciprocal relationship in which they are continually influencing one another.

The sports setting (as opposed to other “real life” group contexts) in particular yields this cohesion-performance correlation, especially in cohesion in task commitment (rather than the more social relationships). When this theory is put in comparison to some of the social psychology models (like social identity or social combination theories for example), it clearly takes the main ideas and adapts them to the sports world. There are so many different factors and complexities that exist on sports teams as compared to any other group environment and I find Carron’s (1982) work to successfully consolidate many of them into this model.

It is an important model to explain in my study of teamwork as it serves to explain the positive correlation between sports performance and team cohesion, thus providing rationale for the need to continue to develop a teamwork definition and ways to improve it. Cohesion is proven to be a correlate of increased performance which is the goal of sports teams, so the need to maximize this correlation is very important on a practical level. There is considerable research that still needs to be done in this area, however, as both Mullen and Cooper (1994) and Slater and Sewell (1994) explain that the field lacks longitudinal studies, sport-based research, multivariate analyses and more types/levels of sports studied.

developmental stage that important components of cohesion are developed leading into the fourth and final stage.

The fourth stage is performing – this is the ultimate stage of team development maturity. It is at this point that the group has matured to a stage it is able to work cohesively and effectively as a unit. The tension of competing for influence should not, at this final stage, be a destructive force anymore and all individuals understand how their personal role contributes to the collective team efforts in performance and competition.

One very crucial component missing from Tuckman’s model of team development (1965) is the inevitable fact that there are constant and continual changes and conflicts in group dynamics, especially on a sports team. I would argue that the third stage (“norming”) should be modified. Successful team development and the resulting team cohesion does not rely on individuals simply setting for their “role” on the team. Instead, healthy competition should continue into the “performing” stage and beyond. Team members should want to keep getting better and make more of an influence on the team for the betterment of the group. This adjustment is reflected in my own coaching model and teamwork definition which takes the dynamic and fluid nature of the sports team environment into consideration.

Although social loafing effects would seem to apply to the group setting of a sports team, studies and field research have shown that there is actually something different about a sports team that does not produce the lack of individual effort in a group. Rather, the more closely someone identifies with a group, the less likely they are to loaf (Hogg, 1992). So, I would argue that strong team cohesion and commitment to a team is actually an effective way to reverse the effects of social loafing and enhance and increase individual effort toward group goals. This

explains why a strong team identity is especially important. If individual members of a team do not feel closely a part of the group or do not identity with the team mentality, philosophy and overall identity, social loafing will again be activated.

Another important expansion of Hogg’s work is that of Brehm and Kassin (1996) and (Sanna, 1992). Their works determined four important principles that explain the social loafing and social facilitation phenomena. The first is that presence of others in group team setting enhances performance on easy tasks. This occurs because individuals will be more motivated under evaluation of others when they are confident they can do well on tasks they are familiar and comfortable with. The second principle examines when tasks are difficult. Individual performance in a team setting may worsen as stress and arousal levels increase. The third principle is that when the presence of others decreases the evaluation of an individual’s work and effort, performance on otherwise easy and familiar tasks will be impaired. This occurs due to a lack of motivation caused by the basic principle of social loafing. Individuals on a team, for example, may feel that they can “free ride” and let their teammates put in the hard work while they ride on their efforts in this case.

The fourth and final principle is most relevant to the novel piece of this project. Brehm and Kassin (1996) and Sanna (1992) explain that performance on otherwise difficult tasks will actually be enhanced and improved in a group setting because individuals feel less anxiety and stress in a group setting – a phenomenon coined “social security”. So, if teammates feel comfortable and cohesive with one another, understandably they will feel more confident and relaxed to achieve difficult tasks. In the sports setting, these “difficult tasks” are the high pressure competitive game (or race/match) situations in which there are significant demands to perform well. If a team member does not feel a close or important part of the team – that is –