Group Dynamics

Groups consist of two or more people working together towards a set goal.

The term ‘group’ is used interchangeably with the term ‘team’ and this will be the case for this chapter. In a group situation, performers interact and these relationships lead to each person influencing, and being influenced by, the others in the group. Although a crowd of supporters involves more than one person, it would be too large for mutual awareness and close interaction; it would probably consist of many different groups. A group can be distinguished from a collection of individuals because a group has a collective identity where they share norms and values. A group also has a sense of collective purpose with common goals, e.g. wanting to win a league. Groups are seen as continually changing and developing units of people. How individuals in the group get along with each other and interact is referred to as group dynamics, and as you read in the chapter introduction, sometimes individuals get along, and sometimes they do not. Groups will exhibit six factors that identify them and these are the 6 I’s.

The term ‘team spirit’ is often used when describing a team that works well and for each other. If a player in the team falls and their team-mates are able to ‘pick them up’ (literally and metaphorically) they are referred to as cohesive. Cohesion is defined as dynamic process reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals and objectives.

Carron (1982) developed a model to conceptualise cohesion and identified four main antecedents, or factors, that affect the development of cohesion in sport: environmental, personal, leadership and team factors.

Environmental factors include the type of sport; certain activities rely on interaction such as netball, hockey, lacrosse, korfball and other team games. Other sports such as cricket and tennis require less interaction. External threats and outside influences also fall into this category such as the quality of the training facilities.

Personal factors can be classified into three categories: demographic (how similar group members are to each other in terms of age, race and gender), cognitions and motives (likelihood for anxiety or taking responsibility) behaviour (social loafing and adherence to goals). Other factors include how satisfied the individuals are within the group.

Cohesion is the tendency of a group to stay together to achieve certain objectives or outcomes and is categorised into task and social cohesion.

Cohesion has been classified into two categories: task and social cohesion. Task cohesion is known as the degree to which members of a group work together to achieve common goals and objectives. This is often expressed as the ‘desire to win’ and can be linked to the level of effort group members put in and the high levels of teamwork. When players are selfish and do things that benefit themselves rather than the team this is the opposite and in most situations it is detrimental to the team’s success. An example would be a basketball player who doesn’t pass to team-mates, trying to do too much themselves. Social cohesion is the interpersonal attractions among group members; how well the group gets on with one another.

The Importance of Cohesion to Success

Research suggests that cohesion is important in success but of the two types; task cohesion is the most important. For example, if one of your team-mates is injured or ill and doesn’t turn up for a game, would you be willing to play in their position as this is best for the team or would you be selfish and allow someone else to play there so you could play in your preferred role? Task and social cohesion are independent of each other. It is possible to have high levels of task cohesion with low levels of social cohesion; where team-mates have a shared goal of winning and have a team mentality (rather than thinking about themselves) but do not get on with each other, and are successful. Having high social cohesion and low task cohesion does not usually equate to success because players may not do things for the best of the team, but try to keep each other happy! Maybe you have played for a team where your captain favours his/her friends to maintain social cohesion to the detriment of the team. It is generally accepted that highly cohesive teams are more successful, this in turn, can lead to an increases in cohesion particularly social.

Developing a Cohesive Group

As discussed earlier it is beneficial for the team’s performance to develop cohesion, and other than winning, coaches can employ different techniques to achieve this.

It is important to create an environment that allows cohesion so coaches should select players who are ‘team players’ and create an ethos of respect for one another. Coaches must encourage players to listen to each other. In this environment participants will start to share behavioural norms and have similar outlooks or beliefs of how they should behave.

Effective goal setting is important for task cohesion and providing a clear view of aims allows the team to share the same goals and develop similar reasons for playing. One of the techniques used by England’s Rugby World Cup winning manager Clive Woodward was to overplay team goals, decorating changing rooms with posters of these goals.

Coaches must credit for personal success within the team and highlighting individual performance can improve cohesiveness. Reinforcement and praise of cohesive behaviour will develop teamwork. Conversely coaches may choose to punish or drop un-cohesive or ‘non-team’ players.

Encouragement of group identity and belonging to the team can be developed through team building exercises. Developing situations that build social support, communication and friendship will enhance social cohesion.

Often a lack of cohesion is related to players not understanding their positions and when the coach clarifies the player’s role and gives the individual responsibility, task cohesion is increased. Splitting the team up into smaller groups can combat the ‘Ringlemann effect’ especially if each group is assigned specific goals, for example in American football the offence may be set different goal than the defence.

If your school relay team was competing against the GB sprint relay team you would probably expect to get thrashed, and rightly so, as they would have individuals who were physically and technically more able. However, the favourites in a race or competition don’t always win, the ‘minnows’ or ‘underdogs’ sometimes triumph and Steiner (1972) developed a model which can be applied team situations and whether a team is successful or not shown by this equation:

Actual productivity = Potential productivity – losses due to faulty group processes

The team’s Actual productivity is how the team actually perform on the day and this is equal to its Potential productivity minus faulty process losses.

Potential productivity is the best possible performance a team is capable of producing, based on the quantity and quality of the group’s resources relevant to the task. So in the relay example, if all four runners in the GB team had run under 10 seconds in an individual race, whereas the runners from your school had only run between 11 to 13 seconds then the potential to run the race in under 40 seconds would be great in the GB team but almost impossible for the school team. Other factors that can influence potential productivity include:

· Each individual performer’s abilities.

· Each individual performer’s skill level.

· Knowledge of tactics and strategies.

· Individual and group knowledge and experience.

· Individual and group psychological resources.

Teams will very rarely perform to their potential, and if you ever watch an elite relay race this is sometimes blatantly obvious! Below par actual productivity is due to faulty processes and these can be categorised into co-ordination losses and motivational losses. Co-ordination losses are when team work is ineffective and strategies may not be understood. In a relay changeover, if the receiving runner sets off too late the incoming runner will need to slow down so valuable time is lost, or even worse they may clash and drop the baton! The more interactive the sport the more difficult it is for the team to act in a co-ordinated manner (Ringlemann effect). For example in a hockey penalty corner move, or a rugby lineout there can be more margin for error when more people are involved in the move. Motivational losses include individual or group members varying levels of effort and players relying on other (social loafing), there may also be individuals lacking in confidence which result in them not trying as hard or in a game situation ‘hiding’ or shying away from the play being frightened of making mistakes. Overconfidence can also lead to lowering levels of motivation and this lack of effort may reduce actual productivity. This often explains the ‘giant killing’ effect in team and individual sports.

Many sports performers will have competed in games where they are one player short. This may be through a ‘sin bin’ offence or in youth sports because a player just did not show up. The effects of having fewer players than the opposition are not always debilitating, with the team with the extra player(s) not always winning. This phenomenon was investigated over 100 years ago by Ringlemann on a rope pulling task. This study has been recreated to observe the phenomenon by which individual performance decreases as the number of people in the group increases – or the ‘Ringlemann effect’. This effect has been partly attributed to motivational losses but mostly to co-ordination losses. Figure 31.3 shows typical results for the amount of force exerted by an individual then in groups of increasing numbers. Ringlemann’s initial results showed that when two people pulled together they only exerted 93% of the total force they exerted when they completed on their own. When pulling in groups of three, this was reduced to 85% and in groups of eight this dropped to 49%. Due to issues with the research, Ingham et al (1974) replicated the work and extended it. In an attempt to work out whether the reduction in effort was due to motivation or co-ordination issues they blindfolded the participants and when working in groups they pulled with actors who pretended to join in. Ingham also found reductions in power as group size increased. However, the researchers saw a levelling off of power output when pulling in groups of four or more. Therefore motivation was the main reason for the drop in power throughout the task.

‘Social Loafing’ is a term psychologists use to describe the phenomenon in which individuals within a group put in less effort due to motivation losses. Group activities and team games provide the perfect opportunity for performers to ‘loaf’ and take it easy, as their individual performances may not necessarily be assessed; they become ‘lost’ in the crowd.

Causes of social loafing include:

Individual influences

o Lack of confidence and low self-efficacy,

o High level of trait and/or state anxiety,

o Injury or illness,

o ‘Off the pitch’ problems such as psychological, emotional or social issues,

o Perceived or actual low ability, leading to learned helplessness after a negative past experience,

o Individual’s personal involvement is low. The performer could disagree or not understand the role,

o Individual output not measured effectively, with a lack of accountability enables them to hide from responsibility.

Team influences

o The team goal lacks meaning to the individual,

o Some of the group are not known to other individuals with sub groups resulting in limited cohesion,

o Group performance allows the individual to expect others to do well, thus relying on them,

o Individual’s efforts cannot be compared to group standards possibly due to a lack of fitness,

o Perception that others are not trying,

o Easier to loaf with more people around them,

o Individual believes his efforts will go unnoticed and feels undervalued or unappreciated by the team.

External influences

o Situational factors such as weather or unfamiliar surroundings,

o Incorrect strategies and tactics by coach,

o Effects of the crowd, a hostile crowd may boo the player who avoids the situations that bring attention to themselves.

Eliminating Social Loafing

A coach can reduce social loafing by punishing a player who doesn’t try hard enough. Maybe by fining them or dropping them; however, this maybe counter productive if the player is one of the most gifted so a less negative approach could be to look at the causes and address them. Rewards can be given for good effort or trying hard, and this could simply be through giving praise. Strategies include giving credit for personal success and highlighting individual performance such as rewarding a winger’s ‘assists’ in football. Effective goal setting principles should be followed setting appropriate process and performance goals rather than outcome goals. Clarifying an individual’s role and giving them a sense of responsibility may also help. This can be practised through ‘set plays’ and reinforced with encouragement of social bonds through team building exercises. Reinforcement of good team work and cohesive behaviour will encourage a group identity and sense of belonging, which will reduce the chances of social loafing. Match and video analysis is often used in elite sport. For example a rugby coach may highlight the number of tackles each player makes and how many of these were successful. In hockey and football, running distances can also be used to monitor effort and application. The coach must also carefully consider who to appoint as team captain; a good leader can not only detect the social loafing, but, can motivate players through encouragement or positive and negative feedback.