Cohesion

Cohesion

- 'To cleave/stick together' - 'A dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives +/ for the satisfaction of member affective needs' (Carron, Brawley and Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213) • Underscores notion that cohesion is (a) multidimensional, (b) dynamic, (c) instrumental and (d) affective - Forces acting to 'keep you together' - Festinger, Schacter and Back (1950) - 'the total field of forces which act on members to remain in the group' - 2 types of forces: • Attractiveness of the group - indvs desire for interpersonal interactions w/ other group members and desire to be involved in groups activities • Means control - benefits that a member can derive by being associated with group

Understanding team building: Expert coaches' perceptions

- Bloom, Stevens and Wickwire (2003) investigated perceptions of team building as seen by group of expert coaches - 6 themes • Fundamental elements of team building • Team env • Coach role and characteristics • Team-building activities • Lessons learned • R'ships among talent, cohesion and perf

Benefits of cohesion

- Improved performance - Increased adherence exercise or rehab programmes - Lowered anxiety - Higher collective efficacy - Increased satisfaction - even if level of performance isn't changing - Reduced social loafing - feel part of cohesive group = less likely to hide

Type of measurement

• Carron et al. (2002) - increases in task and social associated with increases in perf • Previous indicated task more imp • Both task and social interventions effective in enhancing cohesiveness and improving perf • Socially oriented techniques = team camp-outs, ropes and challenge courses, social get-togethers and personal growth experiences • Task-oriented interventions = team goal setting, team communication, understanding and conforming to team roles and norms

Guidelines for building team cohesion - what coaches/leaders can do

• Communicate effectively - feel comfortable expressing thoughts/feelings - team-building requires climate of openness, airing problems and matters of concern encouraged - Yukelson (1997) - DESC formula - describing (solution), expressing (feelings), specifying (changes) and noting consequences - leaders ensure everyone committed to group goal - increased communication has circular relation with cohesiveness • Explain indv roles in team success - imp of each player's role to team success - give opportunities to contribute - develop support and empathy - have players observe and record effort of teammates in diff positions - assign players to diff positions • Develop pride within subunits - need to support teammates • Set challenging group goals - set high norm for productivity and keep team focused on what needs to accomplish - as achieve goals should take pride in accomplishments and strive towards new goals - need to be clearly defined - perf based rather than outcome based • Encourage group identity - team jackets and schedule social- shouldn't interfere with development of subunit identity - should work hand in hand • Avoid formation of social cliques - often form cliques when team losing, when needs not met/coaches treat athletes differently - disruptive to team and coaches should determine why cliques forming and take steps to break them up • Avoid excessive turnover - diff for members to establish close rapport - veteran players help integrate new players into team - share team expectations in warm, sincere and open manner • Conduct periodic team meetings - allow pos and neg feelings to be honestly, openly and constructively expressed - task about learning from mistakes, redefining goals and maintaining good sporting behaviour - group disclosures (Yukelson, 1997) - discuss indvs and teams they admire and characteristics that contribute to success of indvs and groups - share things they admire about each other and what they have learned from each other • Enhance team efficacy - Heuze, Bosseiut and Thomas (2007) - focusing on developing team efficacy early in season can have pos influence on development of type of cohesion (indv attraction to group - task) later in season - development of collective competence can increase feelings about personal involvement with team's productivity and objectives - strats designed to build/maintain athlete's beliefs about team efficacy encouraged - team drilling and instruction, emphasising contributions to team efforts/helping players help each other and cooperate in task-involving climate • Know the team climate - identify group members that have high interpersonal prestige and status in group - links for communication, helping coaches stay in touch with team's attitudes and feelings - vehicles for expressing ideas, opinions and feelings regarding what's happening on team • Get to know others - enhance personal disclosure - survey indv values - values central determinants of behaviour - Crace and Hardy (1997) presented model to help leaders survey and understand indv values within groups - using Life Values Inventory allows coaches and leaders to (a) increase awareness of indv characteristics from a values perspective, (b) understand pre-dominant values of group, (c) identify factors that promote and interfere with group cohesion from values perspective and (d) develop interventions and strats to improve mutual respect and subsequent cohesion - Dunn and Holt (2004) examined hockey players' subjective responses to personal disclosure, mutual-sharing team-building activity - before tournament, players met and asked to disclose something about themselves that would help define character, motives and desires - emotionally intense and sig life experience - enhanced understanding of self and others, increased cohesion, improved confidence in self and teammates

Task cohesion

The degree to which group members work together to achieve common goals and objectives

Team-building model

- Carron et al. (1993, 1997) developed model - Uses sport psych in first 3 stages in workshop format and coaches used in stage 4 1. Introductory stage • Overview of benefits of group cohesion - emphasising r'ship between cohesion and exercise adherence and perceptions of cohesion and enhanced team dynamics 2. Conceptual stage • Conceptual model presented, group cohesion as output/product of conditions in 3 categories - groups env, structure and processes • Specific factors within each category may differ across situs as imp of fundamental group processes diff across groups • Coaches/leaders presented with research-based generalisations that undergird team-building intervention 3. Practical stage • Coaches/leaders attempt to generate as many specific strats as pos in interactive brainstorming session to use for team building in groups • People differ in personality and preferences - nature of group differs 4. Intervention stage • Specific team-building strats introduced by coaches to teams • Assistants monitor team-building sessions weekly to ensure strats implemented

Barriers to group cohesion

- Clash of personalities in group - Conflict of task/social roles among members - Breakdown in communication among group members/between group leader and members - One/more members struggling for power - Freq turnover of group members - Disagreement on group goals and objectives

Increasing adherence in a naturalistic setting - group cohesion approach

- Estabrooks, Bradshaw, Dzewaltowski and Smith-Ray (2008) - developed intervention community-based programme - 'Walk Kansas' - emphasised group cohesion and group goals to promote PA - 8 week walking programme encouraging members, schoolmates, co-workers, friends and neighbours to come together as a team - set goals for health and fitness - captain recruits 5 people to make 6-member teams who collectively walk 423 miles • Effectiveness - increases in moderate and vigorous PA - more group goals set = more miles walked • Indv maintenance - 6 months after - no decreases in moderate/vigorous PA • Adoption and maintenance - 5 years - no. adopted programme 48-97 • Organisational maintenance - still implemented

Guidelines for building team cohesion - what group members can do

- Get to know members of the group - easier to accept indv diffs - esp. new members - Help group members whenever possible - indvs mutually interdependent - creates team spirit and brings teammates closer - Give group members pos reinforcement - build trust and support - esp. if teammate going through adversity - also helps team - Be responsible - don't blame others for poor perfs - Communicate honestly and openly with coach or leader - Resolve conflicts immediately - Give 100% effort at all times ¬- dedication and commitment is contagious - pos impact on team's unity

Additional correlates of cohesion

- Group status - higher perception of task cohesion = less imp on rewards and status - Role clarity and acceptance - circular r'ship - Collective efficacy - Group norms - Decision style - participative decision style - Sacrifice - greater when cohesion high - Self-handicapping (strategies used to protect self-esteem) - Gender - female - Skill level - high school prof - Social loafing - Attributions for responsibility - distributing credit for success and sharing responsibility for failure - Comp state anxiety - fac = higher task - Imagery

Team-building exercises

- Hope and fear exercise • At beginning of session, 3-5 index cards passed out, players wrote down one hope and one fear for upcoming season • Collected and redistributed and players read cards to initiate discussion - TEAM food for thought • Captains and other team leaders develop Qs that will generate discussion around team culture, cohesion and values - Do you really know me? • Players write down something unusual/unknown about themselves/make something up • Others vote whether statement true/false and receive point is correct/lose point if wrong

Team factors

- How does the team function? - Way group put together - Characteristics of the group are associated with cohesion: • Group task- aims? • Group roles - clearly defined • Team stability- longevity. • Group goals - success or failures - shared experiences - unify team • Group productivity norms • Group position • Collective efficacy - Carron (1982) - teams stay together long time and have strong desire for group success also exhibit high levels group cohesion - Product of what the leader facilitates

Leadership factors

- If coaches place a great deal of emphasis on group cohesion and take steps to enhance it - increased cohesiveness in that group (Williams & Widmeyer, 1991) - Leadership behaviour is associated with cohesion: • Leadership behaviour (emphasis on task cohesion?) • Leadership style (democratic vs. delegative) • Communication - clear, consistent and unambiguous (Brawley, Carron and Widmeyer, 1993, Westre and Weiss, 1991) • Coach-athlete personalities- conflict!? - relationships (commitment, closeness, complementarity, Jowett and Chaundy, 2004) • Good leadership = cohesion! - not trying to prescribe what leadership style is - Even trying to team build is enough - Conflict between group members and coach won't develop cohesion

Personal factors

- Indv characteristics of group members - Shared personal characteristics influence development of cohesion: - People are building blocks of group - Demographic, personality, behaviour! - need to match each other - complicated and imp r'ship between diff people doing diff roles in group - Demographic : • Member similarity • Gender - Cognitions and motives • Attributions for responsibility • Anxiety - Behaviour • Adherence • Social loafing - Similarity of personal attributes - Similar attitudes, beliefs, & motives - Similar ability - Personal satisfaction! - Carron and Dennis (2001) - most imp personal factor is indv satisfaction - Widmeyer and Williams (1991) - member satisfaction best predictor of social and task cohesion in golf

Does team building work? - coaches perspective

- Newin, Bloom and Loughead (2008) • Coaches implemented team-building programmes across season and interviewed regarding perceived success of programmes • Believed athletes enjoyed experience, improved and acquired variety of imp life skills and abilities • Own communication skills improved • Athletes bonded during activities and improved abilities to work together as team

Curing the disease of me

- Pat Riley and the New York Knicks - Plagued by too many self-centred indvs - not liking one another and not respecting one another - Want to sacrifice self-interests for betterment of team - Positive peer pressure, reinforcement of appropriate team-orientated behaviours, team goal setting and open discussions focusing on mutual respect, trust and responsibility - Put talents towards good of team

Tools for measuring cohesion

- Questionnaires - Sociograms

Carron's model of cohesion

- Sources of cohesion - all relate to one another cohesion group and indv outcomes - Proposes 2 types of cohesion

Types of cohesion

- Task and social - Help explain how teams cab overcome conflict to succeed • New York Yankee and Oakland Athletics - low in social cohesion but high in task cohesion

Other factors associated with cohesion

- Team satisfaction - Conformity - Adherence - Social support - Stability - Group goals

Environmental factors

- The nature of the situation influences cohesion: • Contractual obligations - disparity = not good for developing cohesion • Normative pressures • Group size - smaller groups more cohesive than larger ones (Carron and Spink, 1995, Mullen and Cooper, 1994) • Group permeability • Level of competition - high school better than collegiate (Granito and Rainey, 1988) • Scholarships • Geographical restrictions • Cost - Don't predict precisely what they do to cohesion - Normative forces holding a group together

The cohesion-perf r'ship

- Widmeyer, Carron and Brawley (1993) found 83% studies reported pos r'ship between cohesion and perf - higher team cohesion linked to greater team success - Carron, Colman, Wheeler and Stevens (2002) found moderate large cohesion-perf effects and strongest effects in sports teams - Bray and Whaley (2001) - higher levels of cohesion increase perf by producing higher levels of effort - "When a pressure situation presented itself, we were plugged into one another as a cohesive unit. That's why we were able to come back so often and win so many close games. And that's why we were able to beat more talented teams" (Michael Jordan, 1994) - task cohesion - "Harmony among athletes, among coaches, and between athletes and coaches affects almost everything else." (Orlick, 1986) - social cohesion - can challenge based on literature - Most studies find a positive relationship between cohesion and performance 92% (see, e.g., Mullen & Copper, 1994) - But... some studies report contradictory findings (i.e. Carron, Spink, & Prapavessis, 1997) - Positive cohesion-performance relationship with task cohesion measures - No cohesion-performance relationship with social cohesion measures

Questionnaires

• Don't show how indvs relate to each other, whether cliques developing/whether some group members socially isolated • Sport Cohesiveness Questionnaire (Martens, Landers and Loy, 1972) • 7 items that measure interpersonal attraction/directly rate closeness/attraction to the group • No reliability/validity measures • Mainly address social • Yukelson, Weinberg and Jackson (1984) developed 22 item tool = Multidimensional Sport Cohesion Instrument - 4 broad dimensions of team cohesion: (a) attraction to group, (b) unity of purpose, (c) quality of team work and (d) valued roles • Attraction to group reflects social cohesion - others reflect task • Youth Sport Env Questionnaire - young athletes discriminated mostly along lines of task v social and less along indv-group dimension than adults (Eys, Loughead, Bray and Carron, 2009) • Group env Questionnaire (GEQ) developed, distinguishing between indv and group and between task and social (Widmeyer, Brawley and Carron, 1985) - guarantee reliability and validity - successfully used in numerous studies of group cohesion in sport as well as fitness settings - level of cohesion related to team perf, increased adherence, group size, attributions for responsibility for perf outcomes, reduced absenteeism, member satisfaction and intrateam communication Based on member's perception of group as totality and member's personal attraction to group - can focus on task/social aspects

Strats for enhancing cohesion - exercise settings

• Dropout rates from formal exercise at 50% • Cohesion to enhance attendance rates • Dropout rates from exercise programs have less regard for exercise class' task and social cohesion than Ps who stay with programme (Carron and Spink, 1992/3) • Exercisers with higher feelings of cohesion attend class more regularly and more punctual • Spink and Carron (1993) - tried to build cohesion in exercise classes through team approach - instructors trained in team-building strats to enhance adherence by improving group cohesion - learned that distinctiveness contributes to sense of group identity, unity and cohesion - group name, t-shirt - classes had higher levels of cohesion and sig fewer dropouts and late arrivals - cohesion imp ingredient in exercise settings and in traditional sport settings • Carron and Spink (1995) devised intervention for small and large exercise classes - team building programme offset neg impact that increased size can gave on perceptions of cohesion - no diffs in perceptions from small and large groups

Task demands

• Landers and Leuschen (1974) - need to consider task structure and demands when assessing cohesion-perf r'ship - nature of interactions among team members along continuum from interactive coactive • Interactive = team members to work together and coordinate actions • Coactive = little team interaction and coordination • Carron et al (2002) - task type not moderator for cohesion-perf r'ship - more cohesiveness related to better perf in coactive and interactive sports • Absolute level of cohesiveness higher in interactive sport - coaches use many team-building strategies associated with increased cohesiveness - ensuring role clarity and acceptance, establishing team perf goals and improving athlete-athlete and coach-athlete communication • Coactive - team-building interventions have greater impact on tam cohesion and perf

Conformity

• More cohesive = more influence group has on indv members • Detroit Pistons won consecutive NBA titles in 1989 and 90 - known as 'bad boys' and norm was to play rough, tough, aggressive, intimidating • Highly cohesive demo greater conformity to group's norm for productivity - Chicago Bulls 1990s - Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen set high group norm for productivity

Adherence

• Paskevich et al. (2001), Burke, Carron and Shapcott (2008) - indvs in exercise classes who feel more cohesive (a) likely to attend more classes, (b) more likely to arrive on time, (c) less likely to drop out, (d) more resistant to disruptions in group, € more likely to experience pos affect related to exercise and (f) stronger efficacy beliefs related to exercise • R'ship between cohesion and adherence remains constant regardless of exercise leader-P ration • Cohesion pos influenced adherence in larger fitness centres and smaller uni-based classes

Social support

• Pos r'ship between social support indv receives and evaluations of group cohesion (Rees and Hardy, 2000) • Social support provided by coaches pos related to athlete' perceptions of task cohesion within high school and football teams (Westre and Weiss, 1991), cohesion and satisfaction within college basketball teams (Weiss and Friedrichs, 1986) and higher perf within collegiate football teams (Garland and Barry, 1990) • Rosenfeld and Richman (1997) provided numerous suggestions for enhancing areas of social support • Key point that coaches and leaders should understand importance of social support and how and when to use various types of social support to enhance group cohesion

Strats for enhancing cohesion - sport settings

• Prapavessis, Carron and Spink (1997) - intervention began with elite male soccer coaches attending workshop during off season, specific strats for implementing team-building programme established - coaches became active agents in development of practical strats to be used in team-building programme - developed applied techniques and procedures that could be used for team building with teams during 6 weeks before season - coaches in control used many strats from cohesion intervention to enhance cohesion • Holt and Sparkes (2001) - investigated factors associated with building of cohesion in soccer team across season - in-depth interviews and P observations revealed factors associated with development of cohesion at midseason and end of season - midseason = clear and meaningful roles, team goals, communication and selfishness/personal sacrifice more strongly related to cohesion - end of season = same factors still operative - unstable nature of cohesion and can change of course of season • Pain and Harwood (2009) - collegiate soccer team found open team discussions, sharing of info, open communication lines and honesty lead to enhanced feelings of cohesion and improved confidence in teammates and better overall perf • Veach and May (2005) developed model (MAPS) to guide building of various sports teams Mission - guide towards goals Assessment - strengths and weaknesses Plan Systematic evaluation

Stability

• Refers to turnover rate for group membership and length of time group members have been together • Carron and Hausenblas (1998) - team cohesion and stability related in circular fashion - longer team together, more likely cohesion will develop, and more cohesive ream becomes, less likely members will leave • Essing (1970) and Loy (1970) - studies of soccer and baseball teams across single season showed teams with few line-up changes more successful than those that changed constantly • Donnelly, Carron and Chelladurai (1978) - determine whether optimal time to keep group of players together to max cohesion and success - in Major League Baseball, teams with half-life of 5 years most successful • Brawley, Carron and Widmeyer (1988) compared groups that exhibited either high/low cohesion on perceived resistance to disruption - pos r'ship between group cohesion and group resistance to disruption

Team satisfaction

• Satisfaction is indv construct • One model hypothesises circular relation - team cohesion leading to perf success leading to feelings of satisfaction which strengthen and reinforce team cohesion - cohesion directly enhances perf • Other model hypothesises circular r'ship but perf success leads to higher cohesion which leads to greater satisfaction - perf success leads to cohesion

Group goals

• Shared perceptions that refer to a desirable state for the group as a unit • Brawley et al. (1993) - study of volleyball, hockey, basketball and swimming teams Members who perceived team engaged in group goal setting for comp had higher cohesion - Higher satisfaction with team goals = higher cohesion Cohesion still related to team satisfaction and group goals throughout season • Widmeyer, Silva and Hardy (1992) and Widmeyer and Williams (1991) showed that states team goal and acceptance most imp contributor to task cohesion and second most imp for social - as commitment to, clarity of and imp or goal increased, group cohesion also increased - having indvs participate in developing team/group goals also increased group cohesion • Athletes who perceive team goal encourages them to increase effort and who practice drills designed to achieve goal will feel satisfied with team's practice goals • Widmeyer and Ducharme (1997) suggest following guidelines: Establish LT goals first that are specific and challenging Establish clear paths to the LT goals through use of ST goals Involve all team members in establishing goals Carefully monitor progress toward team goals Reward team progress toward team goals Foster collective efficacy concerning team goal attainment

Social cohesion

• The interpersonal attractions among group members • The degree to which members of a team like each other and enjoy one another's company

Sociograms

• Tool to measure social cohesion • Discloses affiliation and attraction among group members, inc.: Presence/absence of cliques Members' perceptions of group closeness Friendship choices within the group The degree to which athletes perceive interpersonal feelings similarly Social isolation of indv group members Extent of group attraction • Ask indv members specific questions - 'name 3 people in group most like to invite to part and 3 people least like to invite' • Based on responses to questions, sociogram created, reveal pattern of interpersonal relationships in group - most freq chosen placed towards centre and less freq outside

Direction of causality

• Whether cohesion leads to perf success/perf success leads to cohesion Cohesion leads to perf, that is cohesion measures precede perf Perf leads to cohesion, that is perf measures precede cohesion • Too many uncontrolled factors - previous team success, coaching/talent • Williams and Hacker (1982) - stronger effects of perf on cohesion in intercollegiate female field hockey players • Grieve, Whelan and Meyers (2000) - effect of perf on cohesion stronger than other way round - consistent with Mullen and Cooper (1994) using diff types of teams • Most recent review using just sports teams found no diff between r'ships - consistent w/ research suggesting relation between cohesion and perf is circular