Explain the relationship between team cohesion and performance and describe aids and barriers to team cohesion
Team Cohesion Depends on 4 Factors
1) Individual Factors - athlete satisfaction with membership. This is one of the strongest determinants of team cohesion. 2) Team Factors - communication, having clear team role goals, individual perceptions of importance of achieving goals, gender, previous success. This indicates self efficacy. 3) Leadership Factors - coaches' efforts and success in establishing a "we" mentality and communicating clear goals such as the teams' perception of the coach's efficacy and the coach's self efficacy. 4) Environmental Factors - the size of the group and external pressures to win. Small groups are more likely to experience cohesion while elite teams are more likely to be cohesive if they have success.
Aids to Team Cohesion
Team Building - building a team spirit and mutual goal setting are critical to building team cohesion. These involve minimizing the status differences of team roles and emphasizing team goals. The focus on team identity and a common task often leads to satisfaction with the team. Caron and Dennis (2001) found that the most important personal factor for task and social cohesion was member satisfaction. Focus on performance and process goals to promote collective efficacy - if the team and coach formulate team goals together it is more likely that the team will develop a sense of ownership/commitment to the goals. Collective efficacy is positively related to perceptions of team cohesion. Democratic leadership style - more likely to promote cohesion. Coaches should also set challenging group goals, prevent formation of social cliques, and know team climate and something personal about each group member. Clear communication - clear, consistent, and unambiguous communication from the coaches with regard to team goals, tasks, and individual members' roles are important to avoid ambiguity. Kesthan et al (2010) found a relationship between coaches' leadership styles and team cohesion in professional Iranian football teams. Athletes' perception of team cohesion correlated positively with perceptions of the coach exhibiting higher levels of training, social, positive feedback, democratic behavior, and lower levels of autocratic behavior.
Barriers to team cohesion
Weinberg and Gould (2008) argued that the following factors could negatively influence team cohesion: Clash of personalities - some athletes may not be able to control anger (ex: if someone makes a mistake). A conflict of task or social roles among group members - individual athletes may not want to spend as much time training as required to reach common goals, or may not be happy with their role in the team. Breakdown in communication - respectful and clear communication between team members and coach and team is important to maintain cohesion. 1 or more members struggling for power - athletes who are too ego goal-oriented may see membership as a way to achieve personal success rather than success for the team. Frequent turnover of group members - team doesn't have time to interact. Disagreement of group goals/objectives - if the team and coach formulate team and task goals together, it's more likely that the team will develop a sense of ownership and commitment to the team.
Team Cohesion and Performance
a team is a group and therefore subjected to group dynamics. From the moment a team is formed, athletes begin to interact with each other. 1 of the things a coach must attend to is "team spirit" - i.e. form team cohesion so that the team members cooperate to reach common goals. Team cohesion is assumed to be positively related to greater team success.
Carron et al 1985
did a Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) to examine perceptions of task and social reasons for being with the team. 2 main dimensions: Task Cohesion - degree to which members of a team are committed to work together to achieve specific and identifiable goals. Social Cohesion - degree to which members of a team like each other and enjoy being a member of the team. GEQ measures 4 dimensions of cohesion: 1) individual attraction to the group as a social unit. 2) individual perception of the group as a social unit. 3) individual perception of the groups' task. 4) individual attraction to the groups' task.
Carron et al 2002
examined relationship between team cohesion and team success in elite sports teams. 18 university basketball teams, 9 club soccer teams; 294 Canadians (154 female, 140 male) with considerable competitive experience. The teams were assessed for perceptions of task cohesiveness (group integration task and individual attraction to group task using GEQ) and team success (operationalized as the team's win-loss percentage). Results: demonstrated a strong relationship between task-related dimensions of cohesion and success. Conclusion: 1 reason for the relationship between cohesion and team performance being greater is because team cohesion contributes to greater collective efficacy that, in turn, contributes to enhanced team performance.
Carron (1982)
said that cohesion is the dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a team to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals and objects. An indicator of a team's cohesiveness is that team members use terms like "we" and "us" instead of "I" and "me".
