Relationship+between+team+cohesion+and+performance

= ﻿RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEAM COHESION AND PERFORMANCE =

__**//Cohesion//**__ = The way players interact and think about each other. //**Hall (1960)**// = "The fittest to survive and succeed are those able to find their strength in cooperation, able to build teams based upon mutual helpfulness, and responsibility for one's fellow teammates." **//Carron (1982)//** defines cohesion as a dynamic process reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals and objectives. In other words, a team is cohesive if the members get along, are loyal, and are united in the pursuit of the team's goals. **//Carron et al. (1985)// //task cohesion =//** a group's orientation towards reaching the group's goal. **//Social//** **//cohesion =//** the general orientation towards developing and maintaining social relationships within a group.



Group dynamics [] Team harmony slideshare [] Tuckman's stages []

[|Team Cohesion and outcome (US baseball example)] [|BBC Psychology of Team Dynamics (5 programmes)]


 * ﻿media type="youtube" key="H3q-gL9HN84?fs=1" height="300" width="400"media type="youtube" key="zT8vXGTFNes?fs=1" height="300" width="400"media type="youtube" key="hbpSM5EEUhs?fs=1" height="300" width="400" **

Tuckman (1965) Latane (1979) Carron (1986)

**Cohesiveness** = a dynamic process reflected in te tendency for a group to stick together and remain united to achieve the goal.
 * // Theories of Group Cohesion //**
 * Cohesive groups have well defined roles and group norms, common goals, shared respect and trust, good communication and pride in membership.

Types of cohesion:
 * //**Task cohesion**// = group members work together to achieve goals
 * //**Social cohesion**// = members of the team like each other (u sing sociograms to assess cohesion (sociocultural level of analysis))

//A Level Psychology Through Diagrams//, Grahame Hill, Oxford University Press (2001), page 271

Tuckman (1965): Sequential Development of Small Groups: storming, forming, norming, performing (adjourning, a 5th stage, added later) Adjourning/mourning Evaluation issues: Individual v Situation Validity (supporting research) Reductionism Determinism
 * //Key Studies//**

**//Group Dynamics//** = A group is two or more persons who are interacting with one another in such a manner that each person influences and is influenced by each other person (Shaw M E 1976, Group Dynamics).

For a collection of people to be defined as a group, the members must: The social mixing of a sports club is termed "Social Cohesion" and a group with shared formal goals who are normally successful as a group (e.g., the 8 rowers in a boat race) is referred to as "Task Cohesion".
 * interact with one another
 * be socially attracted to each other
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">share goals or objectives
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">have a shared identity which distinguishes them from other groups

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">//**Group development**// = development of a group normally goes through the following stages: There are many different forms of interaction in a group. We have social interaction (formation of friends) and task interaction (the way the members cooperate to achieve goals). Tuckman & Jenson's 5th Stage (1977) and a critique of Tuckman's developmental sequence: **Adjourning** = disengagment from the activity [] //**Cohesion**// = the extent to which members of a group exhibit a desire to achieve common goals and group identity. Research tends to support the view that high interaction teams need high task cohesion to be consistently successful, whereas for moderate or low interaction teams cohesion is less important to success. Again, we have social cohesion, extent to which members of the group get on with one another, and task cohesion, the extent to which members cooperate to achieve the group's goals.
 * **Forming** - the group gets together and a level of formality is common
 * **Storming**- heightened tension associated with competition for status and influence
 * **Norming** - rules and standards of behaviour are agreed
 * **Performing** - group matures to a point where it is able to work together as a team

The following //**factors affect cohesion**//:
 * **Stability** - Cohesion develops the longer a group is together with the same members
 * **Similarity**- Cohesion develops when the more similar the group members are in terms of age, sex, skills and attitudes
 * **Size** - Cohesion develops more quickly in small groups
 * **Support** - Cohesive teams tend to have managers and coaches who provide support to team members and encourage them to support one another
 * **Satisfaction**- Cohesion is associated with the extent to which team members are pleased with each others performance, behaviour and conformity to the norms of the team

//**Loafing**// = the tendency for individuals to lessen their effort when they are part of a group - also known as //**Ringelmann effect**//. Causes of loafing in a team have been attributed to individuals:
 * perceiving others to be working less hard than themselves thereby giving them an excuse to put in less effort
 * believing that their own efforts will have little effect on the outcome
 * disliking hard work and assuming that their lack of effort will not be noticed
 * feeling "off form" and believing team mates will cover for their lack of effort

//**Performance**// = for a group to perform at its highest level of performance, methods and strategies need to be applied which will improve group productivity and reduce loafing. The subsequent effect will be to improve cohesion and develop positive group dynamics. []

Changing Minds website [] Belbin's Team Roles [] Belbin's Team Roles summary []

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">This appears to be a direct contradiction to social facilitation (when we have tasks which we find relatively easy, we find the presence of other people a positive stimulus such that we perform even better; however, when tasks are difficult, we find the audience unnerving and we are more likely to put in a worse performance), but can be explained by the differing circumstances in which it occurs. In particular, when working in a group, it can be easier to conceal laziness when working in a group of people who are working together. The key here is that the **//loafer is not worried about being evaluated//**. This can also be an attraction of being an acknowledged expert or in a position of authority: although it may take time to climb the mountain, you may be able to relax once you have got there. However, when we are being evaluated, such as when working on a team task, we will work hard to ensure nobody can criticize us for not pulling our weight.
 * //<span style="background-color: #ffff00; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Social loafing //**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">= tendency for people to perform worse on simple tasks, yet better at complex tasks when they are in the presence of others.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">People who have less concern for groups are more likely to be social loafers, such as men and Western societies in general. []

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">**//Research//**: Max Ringelmann (1913) found that when a group of men were asked to pull on a rope, they each pulled less hard than when pulling alone.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">**//Example//:** Female rowers: []

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">A Level Psychology Through Diagrams Grahame Hill Oxford University Press (2001) Page 255

Reasons why loafing occurs:
 * //Latane (1979)//** = social loafing is "a decrease in individual effort due to the social presence of other persons" (Latane et al. 1979).
 * lack of performer identifiability -- people feel unmotivated when working with a team, because they think that their contributions will not be evaluated or considered -- in a group situation in which the presence of others causes relaxation instead of arousal. When individuals relax their performance, they are able to fade into the crowd, which is especially appealing to people when they know they are not going to be accountable for their actions or performance
 * skill level may influence a social loafing effect
 * task duration is a largely untested aspect of social loafing
 * when the person feels under appreciated within their team or group
 * when subjects perceive the criterion task as unimportant, meaningless, not intrinsically motivating, or performed by relative strangers under noncompetitive conditions (Hardy, 1990; Hardy & Latane, 1988)
 * social impact theory (Latene 1981) which indicates that when an individual is the target of social forces, the amount of social pressure on the targeted person should increase linearly as a function of the strength, immediacy, and number of others. However, if the group rather than the individual is the target of these external social forces, than the group members serve as cotargets of the social impact, diffusing the responsibility throughout the group and allowing each member to exert less effort than if they were alone (also see Hardy, 1990). Thus, individuals are less likely to feel accountable for the quality of their performance if they are held collectively responsible for task success.

Social loafing has been explained as a motivational loss which, according to Hardy and Latane (1988), may be overcome when: (1) the performers efforts are identifiable, (2) the individual perceives they are making especially when a unique contribution to the group's effort, performing a task perceived as difficult, (3) individuals perform with friends as opposed to strangers, and (4) when the task personally involves the performer.

Evaluation Reliability Validity Sample Method Ethics

Ringlemann (1913) Also: Further sport specific reseacrh by Latane et al (1980) How individual feedback reduces social loafing Ingham et al (1974)

According to Dan J. Rothwell, it takes "the //**three C's of motivation**//" to get a group moving: collaboration, content, and choice. <span class="goog_qs-tidbit goog_qs-tidbit-2">Thus, the answer to social loafing may be motivation. A competitive environment may not necessarily get group members motivated.
 * 1) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">**Collaboration** is a way to get everyone involved in the group by assigning each member special, meaningful tasks. It is a way for the group members to share the knowledge and the tasks to be fulfilled unfailingly. For example, if Sally and Paul were loafing because they were not given specific tasks, then giving Paul the note taker duty and Sally the brainstorming duty will make them feel essential to the group. Sally and Paul will be less likely to want to let the group down, because they have specific obligations to complete.
 * 2) **Content** identifies the importance of the individual's specific tasks within the group. If group members see their role as that involved in completing a worthy task, then they are more likely to fulfill it. For example, Sally may enjoy brainstorming, as she knows that she will bring a lot to the group if she fulfills this obligation. She feels that her obligation will be valued by the group.
 * 3) **<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Choice ** gives the group members the opportunity to choose the task they want to fulfill. Assigning roles in a group causes complaints and frustration. Allowing group members the freedom to choose their role makes social loafing less significant, and encourages the members to work together as a team.

In conjunction with the "three C's of motivation," Latane, Williams and Harkins have three possible causes, and thus options to combat social loafing. They include: []
 * 1) **//Attribution and equity//**: Many times, people come into groups with preconceived notions of how much effort they will put in or how other slack off in groups.
 * 2) **//Submaximal goal setting//**: Like collaboration, tasks should be made and distributed with optimization instead of maximization. Once each member has a specific duty, instead of many working on the same task, then they will have the opportunity to be evaluated as an individual as well as a group member.
 * 3) **//Lessened contingency between input and output//**: Social loafers believe that they can "hide in the crowd" to avoid negative effects,or that they will "get lost in the crowd" and feel that they will not get proper credit when they deserve it.

When does social loafing occur? []

Latane: Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing []

Aspects of cohesion A Level Psychology Through Diagrams Grahame Hill Oxford University Press Page 255 + 271

Carron (1980) defined a //**cohesive group**// as having the following //**characteristics**//:
 * a collective identity
 * a sense of shared purpose
 * structured patterns of communication

Carron (1986) Evaluation Individual v Situation Validity (supporting research) Ethnocentrism Reductionism Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) used to measure team cohesion, 5 factors associated with group cohesion How cohesion is usually studied in psychology

Momentum in sports