Lecture 5: Group dynamics and team cohesion

Question 1

why study group dynamics?

Answer 1

• 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)

Question 2

groups

Answer 2

• A collection of interacting individuals who have:
  ○ A sense of shared purpose/common goal(s)
  ○ Mutual influence

Question 3

team

Answer 3

• ‘we-ness’ - collective sense of identity
  
  • Distinctive individual roles
  • Structured modes of communication
  • Norms - social rules that guide members
  • Task interdependence… teamwork

Question 4

process to becoming a team (linear perspective)

Tuckman and Jenkins (1977)

Answer 4

Forming –> storming –> norming –> performing

Question 5

forming

Answer 5

• Familiarisation
  
  • Social comparisons
  • Strengths/weaknesses
  • Do I belong?

Question 6

storming

Answer 6

• Resistance: leader, group, interpersonal
  
  • Infighting
  • Establish role/status
  • Communication

Question 7

norming

Answer 7

• Conflicts resolved
  
  • Solidarity
  • Cooperation
  • Sense of unity
  • Common goals
  • Economy of effort

Question 8

performing

Answer 8

• Togetherness
  
  • Team success
  • Problem solving
  • Roles are defined
  • Test new ideas

Question 9

group cohesion

Answer 9

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

Question 10

conceptual model of cohesion (Carron, 1982)

4 factors influencing whether a team will be cohesive or not:

Answer 10

1. 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

Question 11

characteristics of cohesion

Answer 11

• 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

Question 12

types of cohesion

Answer 12

task

social

Question 13

task cohesion

Answer 13

• Task cohesion: the degree to which members of a group work together to achieve common goals.

Question 14

social cohesion

Answer 14

• Social cohesion: the degree to which members of a group like each other and enjoy one another’s company.

Question 15

Conceptual framework of group effectiveness (Steiner, 1972)

Answer 15

Actual productivity = potential productivity - group process losses

Question 16

potential productivity

Answer 16

‘relevant sources’

player’s abilities, knowledge and skills (mental and physical)

Question 17

group process losses

Answer 17

faulty group processes

motivation losses

coordination losses

Question 18

the Ringelmann effect

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

causes of social loafing

Answer 19

free rider

minimising strategy

allocation strategy

false perception that increased effort won’t be recognised

Question 20

free rider

Answer 20

• ‘free rider’: perception that their effort is (relatively) unimportant for the outcome.

Question 21

minimising strategy

Answer 21

• ‘minimising strategy’: motivated to get by doing as little as possible.

Question 22

allocation strategy

Answer 22

• ‘allocation strategy’: save best efforts for then the most beneficial to self.

Question 23

counteracting social loafing (Carron, 1988)

Answer 23

• Emphasise the importance of individual contributions (identify + communicate)
  
  • Increase accountability

Question 24

group environment questionnaire

Answer 24

• Widmeyer, Brawley and Carron, 1985
  
  • Individual vs group
  • Task and social cohesion
  • Reliable, valid measure

Question 25

antecedents: team size research

Answer 25

- 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

Question 26

antecedents: role clarity and acceptance

Answer 26

- 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)

Question 27

antecedents: team stability

Answer 27

- Teams that have a low turnover are more effective | ○ Baseball league position r=-0.55 (Theberge and Loy, 1976)

Question 28

developing team cohesion

Answer 28

1. Increase team distinctiveness/identity 2. Increase social cohesiveness 3. Clarify goals 4. Improve team communication

Question 29

research into enhancing team cohesion

Answer 29

- 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)