Group dynamics

A collection of individuals who have a sense of shared goals

Have a sense of ‘we-ness”, with distinctive individual roles, structured of communincation and unique norms

• Forming • Storming • Norming • Performing

Group Members familiarise themselves with each other & set ground rule Engage in social comperison with the assesing each others strengths and weakness Looks at belonging on different roles

Give directions Clarify the roles of the positions Encourages participation to not befriend the athlete due to the need to become apart of the team

Members resist control by group leaders and show hostility Individuals/cliqques questions the position of authority of the coach Resist the control of the group Some may try to aquire impartant roles such as head coach

to embrace the storm of chaos as the athletes do want to be coached Providing emotional support to help manage the athletes emotions

Members work together developing close relationships and feelings of camaraderie It switches the hostility to cooperation and solidarity the team works together towards a common goal than their individual agenda Group Cohesion behins to develop

Coach needs to continue with emotional support Aim to empower athletes Be a medium for conflict resolution

Team members work towards getting the job done Work without conflict to achieve shared goals and little objectives Little need for external supervision Group is more motivated Structual issues are resolved Interpersonal relationships stabilise Roles are well defined

Delegates responsibility to athletes Empower athletes to lead Encourage group to be facilitating aims at no over coaching

Found Social cohesion was highest for 6 person team size ATG-Task decreased from 3 to 6 to 9 Performance was best with 6 team size for 9 team size

Role Clarity .38 Role Acceptance .49 Role Performance .43 * Cohesiveness predicted role clarity and acceptance in ice hockey teams (Dawe & Carron, 1990)

Causation – one event is the result of the occurrence of the other event. In this case – is it that levels of cohesion effect performance OR performance effects the levels of cohesion Team cohesion = better performance

Meta analysis of 46 studies in sport 164 effect sizes 9988 athletes 1044 teams Overall relationship between cohesion and performance in sport was “moderate to large”

Increase social Cohesiveness Improve team communication Developing Team Cohesion requires creating identity and distinctiveness

Athletes are provided with a list of performance indicies from the list athletes indentify the ost important areas to establish their team goals Subunits of athletes agree on the four most important indicies to be set as goals

Each athlete independently identifies the target levels for each of the four teams outcomes Subunits of five athletes agree on the target levels the team as a whole then agrees on the target levls

The goals are posted in the teams locker room

The sport psychology consultant meets with the team to review and discuss the team’s goals after each block of three games. Modifications to the team’s goals or target levels were made if deemed necessary.

“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”

The relationship between individual abilities or resources on a team and how team members interact

Actual Productivity = Potential Productivity - Group Process Losses Actually Productivity: the team performance at a given time and refers to the extent of successful interaction