Barriers to Participation (Carron's Antecedents)

Carron believed there were four antecedents with affect the cohesion of a group – environmental, personal, leadership and group factors.  These antecedents (and therefore, cohesion) can also be used to determine the participation of group members. 

The environmental factors include contractual forces, group size, and family expectations.  If a member of the group is contractually obliged to compete (for example, professional footballers who have signed a contract) then of course we should expect that they participate in all team activities (in the case of the footballer; training and matches) otherwise there will be consequences (a fine or deduction of wages).  If an individual is expected to join a group (e.g. parental pressures) then it is likely they will participate because they want to satisfy significant others and make them feel proud.  However, there could be a reduction in participation over the long term if that is the individuals only motives.  Group size is also another important factor which effects an individual’s bond to a team.  If a group is too big the individual will become dissatisfied because they’ll receive less feedback.  There is also likely to be less unity because the larger a group gets the more cliques that form so it becomes harder to get to know people, and the focus of the group changes.  This could affect participation because the group becomes less socially cohesive and the individual would avoid a situation where they feel they don’t fit in, and there is a shift of focus from the actual task.

This leads on to the second antecedent which is personal factors – e.g. gender, personality and the individuals motives.  It’s important that an individual feels like they’re part of the group and they’re accepted for them to partake.  For example, in a P.E. class there are often one or two people who don’t partake because they don’t share the same interests as the rest of the group and they view the class as an opportunity to relax rather than exercise and have fun.  This demonstrates the influence of motives and personality in partaking in group activities.  The group must share a task goal to be cohesive, and they must have similar personalities or reasons for being part of the team if they’re to bind to other team members and feel included in the group.

The third factor is leadership.  The leadership style and relationship between team-leader are all key in determining whether the leader is liked or more importantly respected.  If a leader is disliked or disrespected what they say will not be considered important and there will be a lack of focus on the task.  Participation levels are also likely to decrease if relations between the team and the leader are weak.  For example, students often avoid classes if they don’t like the teacher.  The same occurs in sporting situations, where a team member may not attend training sessions if they don’t get along with the coach or agree with his coaching style.

Finally, there are group factors – e.g. group norms, roles within the group, team ability and team stability.  If a team is unstable (for example, the coach keeps changing and players come and go) a member may regularly avoid participation (e.g. training, games etc.) because there is no sense of dedication to group and it is normal for the group.  It’s also important for the group to have a mutual understanding of what behaviour is and isn’t acceptable (group norms) as research shows members apply more effort in a team with strong group norms (Articlesbase, 2010). Finally, the roles of each individual within the group must be clear to everyone.  This is important because it gives each individual a sense of responsibility and it’ll bind them more as a team because they need to work together to achieve their goals.  For example, if a football team only has one goalkeeper  he won’t want to let the team down by not participating in games.

All of these antecedents lead to a highly cohesive group, and therefore greater member satisfaction.  Satisfaction from the task is going to make the individuals more likely to compete and increase their work output.  The group will feel unified and they’re likely to feel a sense of belonging which too will mean their participation levels remain high, because not only is it a joyful situation but they won’t want to let the team down.  In conclusion, group cohesion which is determined by Carron’s outlined antecedents should ensure participation remains high.

References

Artcilebase.com (2010) Antecedents and Consequences of Cohesion [online] Available from: http://www.articlesbase.com/friendship-articles/antecedents-and-consequences-of-cohesion-2474173.html [Accessed 12th January 2013]

Bibliography

Gill, A. (2012) Cohesion and Development [Presentation] Sport Psychology, HND Sport Coaching, Chesterfield College, December.

Pentin, S. (2013) Group Cohesion [online] Available from: http://sianpentin.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/group-cohesion.html [Accessed 12th January 2013]

Social Loafing

What is social loafing?

Everyone has experienced being part of a group where there are some group members who don’t work as hard as they are expected to.  This is known as social loafing (or the Ringelmann Effect – Ringelmann being the psychologist who initially researched the concept).  Social loafing is defined as ‘the reduction of individual effort exerted when people work in groups compared to when they work alone’ (Forsyth, 2010), leading to a reduction in group productivity.  The group will also be missing the skills of the loafer which could have a huge effect on performance and results, for example if a striker in a football team starts to loaf, it is likely the results will depict this.  This causes other team members to become dissatisfied and frustrated because their work load has increased and because the behaviour of others is affecting their success, leading to a decrease in group cohesion. 

Why does it happen?

Social loafing is most likely to occur when the group are not only working towards the same goal but when they’re performing the same task - e.g. rowing - (Cashmore, 2008) but they feel their individual efforts won’t be recognised and there will be no consequences for not contributing.  Similar to this, loafing also occurs when an individual’s performance is not being monitored; it is only being monitored as a group.  When the group is working towards a common goal, they might feel they don’t have to do as much work because the other group members will make up for it, but they will still receive the same credit – this is known as free riding.  Others contribute less to group effort because they feel other members of the group are being lazy, so they reduce their effort to match that of the others – this is known as the sucker effect.  Another example is when compensation is not distributed fairly between the team.  For example, if one member of a football team receives a higher monetary reward for scoring than another player, then the other player will be less motivated to score as they think it’s unfair.  The final reason is a lack of cohesion.  In a non-cohesive group, members don’t fear letting others down because there is no bond between them, so it is quite likely that loafing will occur.

Overcoming Social Loafing

Having looked at the causes of social loafing, there may be some relatively simple solutions which will increase motivation.  It’s important that individual efforts within the team are recognised.  This could be by the coach giving praise, so members understand the value of their contribution, or tangible rewards (for example a bonus payment for scoring or ‘Player of the Month’ award.  Recognition doesn’t have to a reward though, it could be to monitor the performance of each player and provide statistics of their performance (cricket for example).  Highlighting different member’s strengths and weaknesses will demonstrate the importance of each individual’s role within the team. It is also a form of evaluation which will encourage the individual to become more active in fulfilling their role within the team.  For example, a netball player who is often lazy in games (not running into spaces to receive passes for example) will try harder when a scout from another team is watching.  It will also make the team more likely to encourage any loafers to become involved if they realise what benefit they have to team performance – for example, an athletics club fastest 100m runner who doesn’t want to be a part of the relay team might be persuaded because the team would score more points with them in the relay team.  Finally, a coach should try and establish stronger relationships between the team members and build team cohesion.  This will makes the ties between the loafer and the group stronger and they are less likely to let them down.  

What role does a leader play?

A lot of these solutions will have to be implemented by a coach or team captain.  It’s important that the group leader highlights the importance of the role each member plays, and gives feedback to them as individuals not just as a group.  A leader also has to take the responsibility of confronting the loafer.  This can be done on a one-to-one basis to allow the loafer to give reasons for their lack of effort, and the leader can attempt to solve any problems.  It’s also an ideal time to again highlight the importance of their role within the team talking specifically to them, and support and encourage them to become more active in their role.

By putting these solutions in place, there should be a reduction in social loafing resulting in an increase in group productivity.  It’s important to reduce social loafing because every member of a team has strengths that other people don’t possess, so everyone must apply maximum effort when completing group tasks to reach the groups potential.

Bibliography

Wikibooks (2012) Managing Team and Groups/Social Loafing [online] Available from: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Managing_Groups_and_Teams/Social_Loafing [Accessed 11th January 2013]

References

Cashmore, E. (2008) Sport and Exercise Psychology: The Key Concepts (2nd Ed.) Routledge: Oxon.

Forsyth, D. (2010) Group Dynamics (5th Ed.) Wadsworth Cengage Learning: California.

Exercise and Psychological Well-Being

The percentage of the population that exercises regularly has decreased rapidly over the years, and although no link has been proven between the two, there are also an increasing number of people suffering from mental health problems.  It is believed that exercise improves your mental well-being through reduction of stress and anxiety.  It is also believed that exercise gives a better quality of life in general, with those who are active reporting a better quality of life across all ages, which is why it’s so important to exercise.

The effects of exercise can be categorised into two groups: acute (short term) and chronic (long term).  The most beneficial acute effect is the reduction in state anxiety after both aerobic and anaerobic exercise, although after 24 hours state anxiety is likely to return to its pre-exercise level.  For aerobic exercise, it has been shown that an intensity of between 30-70% maximum heart rate leads to the greatest reduction in anxiety, and between 30-50% for anaerobic exercise (Gill, 2012).  However, any exercise of any intensity will have some effect on the reduction of anxiety, and it's often prescribed by GP’s to aid anxiety reduction.  Over the long term however, it is thought that individuals who are physically fit have a better mental well-being.  Through regular exercise, state anxiety can be reduced over the long term, and trait anxiety can also be reduced significantly.  There is also likely to be a change in indicators of stress, such as resting heart rate, neuro-muscular tension and some stress hormones – which all decrease (Gill, 2012)

As with anxiety, there is a correlation between exercise and depression with depression decreasing as the amount of exercise increases.  The individual’s level of fitness is irrelevant, but for exercise to have the best effect the programme should be followed for at least 9 weeks, and doing both aerobic and anaerobic exercises will give results.  The problem for many is that when you suffer from depression you don’t want to exercise, but exercise is as good as medication in reducing mild depression. 

It has also been shown that exercise can create a positive change on an individual’s mood state.  Mood is defined as ‘a host of transient, fluctuating affective states that can be positive or negative’ (Gill, 2012) such as happiness or sadness.  The best way to enhance your mood through exercise is by making it enjoyable.  It’s also a good idea not to enter any form of competition, but to do predictable exercises and keep everything rhythmical – from the exercises to your breathing.  Make sure not to overdo any form of exercise or put pressure on yourself, moderate intensity exercise a couple of times a week will still produce the same effects.

So, how does exercise actually reduce depression and anxiety?  When you exercise the brain produces more of the chemicals that is uses to communicate (neurotransmitters) such as serotonin and endorphins, changing your moods and thought processes.  There’s also a structural change in the brain due to an increase in the chemicals affecting growth and development.  During exercise blood flow increases to several parts of the body, including the brain, meaning the brain has more oxygen available for consumption.  The increased blood flow to the muscles, alongside the heat generated, leads to decreased muscle tension.  However, it is the psychological effect of exercise that has the greatest results in decreasing depression and anxiety. Exercise is often a distraction and gives you something else to focus in which you can feel in control of.  When you successfully complete an exercise session you get a sense of satisfaction and pride, leading to a positive mood.  By exercising over a long period of time you can build self-esteem, most noticeable in those with extremely low self-esteem, which helps to develop you as a person.  Gruber supports this (1976), by showing that by participating in physical education and directed play, positive changes in self-concept and self-esteem occur (Gill, 2012).   Exercise doesn’t necessarily mean sticking to a strict programme and going to the gym, so it’s important that choose an activity which will give you enjoyment and offer the chance to meet new people.  Other benefits from exercise include changes to your sleep pattern, which even though are minimal, still have a great impact on your life.

It’s clear that exercise shows great benefits associated with mental health and general well-being, so how do you incorporate this into treatment for those who are suffering from mental health problems?  It’s important to remember that exercise isn’t suitable for everyone, much the same as antidepressants, but your GP may prescribe it if it is.  Before starting a programme it’s important that you know the full extent and diagnosis of the health issue.  Firstly, you need to take a look at the individuals background associated with exercise, because if they once fell off a treadmill and broke their arm, it wouldn’t be a good idea to devise a programme which includes using the treadmill as it will only make the problem worse.  Each individual should have a programme which has been devised specifically for them, considering factors such as the extent of the illness, support they receive from significant others, and lifestyle factors (e.g. is it practical?).  People with depression often find it hard to become active and will have a range of excuses as to why they shouldn’t, so it’s important that they are able to do everything that is set and you have a strategy to help them adhere.  Finally, exercise shouldn’t be the only form of treatment, especially for those who have severe conditions, but it works well alongside other forms of therapy. 

In conclusion, there are huge benefits to mental and physiological health from exercise, both acute and chronic.  Exercise aids anxiety, depression, positive mood changes, and quality of life, but it’s important to remember exercise isn’t a solution for everyone and whatever changes you do make must be suitable in order to enhance psychological well-being. 

References

Gill, A. (2012) Unit 018 Exercise Behaviour and Adherence [Presentation] Sport Psychology, HND Sport Coaching, Chesterfield College, December.

Bibliography

Royal College of Psychologists (n.d.) Physical Activity and Mental Health [online] Available from: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/expertadvice/treatments/exerciseandmentalhealth.aspx [Accessed 2nd January 2012]

Models of Exercise Behaviour

Once people overcome barriers to participation (see post 'Barriers to Exercise Participation'), there is still a low adherence to exercise.  This is because starting an exercise programme requires a change in behaviour and lifestyle, which many people find difficult as they find they still have barriers to overcome.  Three months after the lifestyle change happens, almost 40% of individuals will have stopped exercising (Gill, 2012).    There has been a lot of research therefore into how people make the decision to exercise and what it is that keeps them exercising.

Becker and Maiman proposed the Health Belief Model in 1975, which states an individual will take an action that they perceive to be beneficial to their health if: they will avoid damaging their health (e.g. exercising to avoid obesity), and they believe they can successfully carry out that action (e.g. making a realistic goal such as running for 20 minutes a day not entering a marathon) (University of Twente, n.d.). This model is all based upon the individual’s perceptions of the health risks and benefits of taking action.  A weakness of the model is that it suggests someone who doesn’t perceive a risk is unlikely to change their behaviour, it’s also unlikely if they don’t feel they can do so successfully.    There is little evidence to support the effectiveness of the model, and where studies have been conducted it has been found that this model does not predict exercise behaviour (Taylor et al, 2007).

Social Cognitive Theory was developed by Bandura in 1997.  He states that a change in behaviour is a product of the interaction between behaviour, personal factors and environmental factors.  Bandura also considers self-efficacy to be an important personal factor which must exist before any change takes place.  The picture below shows how Bandura believes all three factors are interlinked in producing a change in behaviour.  It is because of this that a given stimulus could produce different responses from different people and therefore produce a completely different behaviour.  The theory is effective in predicting behaviour and identifies ways of intervening in behaviour. 

 

Taken from: http://www.careers.govt.nz/educators-practitioners/career-practice/career-theory-models/banduras-theory/

In 1986 Ajzen and Madden presented the theory of planned behaviour.  They believe that behaviour is determined by a person’s intentions, with intention being defined as ‘the cognitive representation of a person's readiness to perform a given behaviour’ (University of Twente, n.d.).  They then named three factors which influence intentions: attitude towards the behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control.  If the individual believes they have the ability to change their behaviour, their attitude is positive and they think significant others will approve of the decision, then the stronger their intentions will be. Research has suggested that in terms of exercise, even though intentions do positively relate to exercise, not all of the antecedents apply, with subjective norms having little influence on intentions (Psychlopedia, n.d.).  The theory is useful in predicting behaviour however, as those with the intention to change their behaviour usually do so.

The trans-theoretical model of behaviour change was produced by Prochaska and DiClemente in 1983.  It considers six stages thought to be needed to change behaviour, which in this case would be from an inactive lifestyle to regularly exercising.  The six stages are: pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and relapse.  

1.       Pre-contemplation Here the individual has no intention of changing their lifestyle within the short term future.

2.       Contemplation During this stage the individual is unsure whether they may change their lifestyle, but have considered it, and are open to new ideas and information.

3.       Preparation It is at this point that the individual has decided to take action within the near future (roughly 1 month) and has created an action plan

4.       Action During this stage the individual has taken action and amended their lifestyle (in the short term). 

5.       Maintenance By now the individual has committed to change for at least 6 months, and is trying to avoid relapse.

6.       Relapse The individual has ceased exercise and returned to their original lifestyle.  This can happen at any time, and may occur more than once.

To move through these stages people must change their attitude to exercise and how they think about themselves (e.g. eradicating the ‘I don’t have time’ excuse and realising the benefits of exercise on the body).  A downfall of the model is that you cannot predict at what rate people will move through the stages, and some people may skip certain stages jumping back and forth.

In conclusion, not all the models which have been developed have been supported as being effective.  The health belief model for example has not been proven to predict exercise behaviour.  A good point of the model however, is that it specifically notes the individuals perception is key to any change in their behaviour, unlike the other models.  None of the models explain how to prevent a relapse from occurring.  Research on the theory of planned behaviour has shown that people with the intention to change their exercise behaviour normally do so, but not many people have the intention to do.  The model doesn’t explain how to intervene to change a person’s intentions, unlike the social cognitive theory which considers interventions.  The trans-theoretical model of behaviour is the most detailed theory giving different stages but it doesn't suggest ways of intervening (unlike Bandura's) and preventing a relapse.

References

CareersNZ (n.d.) Bandura's Theory [online] Available from: http://www.careers.govt.nz/educators-practitioners/career-practice/career-theory-models/banduras-theory/ [Accessed 3rd January 2013]

Gill, A. (2012) Unit 018 Exercise Behaviour and Adherence [Presentation] Sport Psychology, HND Sport Coaching, Chesterfield College, December

Psychlopedia (n.d.) Theory of Planned Behaviour[online] Available from: http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=69 [Accessed 31^stDecember 2012]

Taylor, D., Bury, M., Campling, N., Carter, S., Garfield, S., Newbould, J., Rennie, T. (2007) A Review of the use of the Health BeliefModel (HBM), the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and the Trans-Theoretical Model (TTM) to study and predict health related behaviour change [online] Available from: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/med/study/ugr/mbchb/phase1_08/semester2/healthpsychology/nice-doh_draft_review_of_health_behaviour_theories.pdf[Accessed 31st December 2012]

University of Minnesota Dulluth (n.d.) Chapter 4 Theories and Models of Exercise Behavior II [online] Available from: http://www.d.umn.edu/~dmillsla/courses/Exercise%20Adherence/documents/TranstheoricaecologicalmodelsLox07.pdf [Accessed 31st December 2012]

 University of Twente (n.d.) Health Belief Model [online] Available from: http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20Clusters/Health%20Communication/Health_Belief_Model.doc/ [Accessed 31^st December 2012]

University of Twente (n.d.) Theory of Planned Behaviour/Reasoned Action [online] Available from: http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Health%20Communication/theory_planned_behavior.doc/ [Accessed 31^st December 2012]

 

 

Barriers to Exercise Participation

Even though we live in a society where there is a large focus on sport, only a third of the UK population exercise regularly, meeting the government recommended guideline amount (The Guardian, 2012).  If you started to ask people why they don’t exercise often the list of answers you’d receive would be endless.  However, there are some common barriers to participation which can be overcome. Reversely, there are certain groups of the population who are more likely to exercise and whom may have specific reasons for doing so.

Barriers

The most common reason that people don’t exercise is because they feel they don’t have the time (which is determined by a number of factors, e.g. work and children).  The reality, however, is that most people do have time to do 30 minutes of exercise a day they simply perceive that they don’t.  They also have a lack of motivation and energy, which is quite common in a society where there high demands on the working population.  People who cite these reasons for not participating are often using them as more of an ‘excuse’ (this isn’t always the case), and it isn’t their priority to exercise.  For example, when someone finishes work they may like to watch TV to relax, but many would argue having time to watch TV means you do have spare time, but watching TV is more important to them than going to the gym.

There are many other factors such as cost, accessibility (transport) and location of facilities which determine whether people participate.  Trends show that people who live in more affluent areas and have a higher disposable income exercise more regularly than those who don’t (Scotland.gov.uk, 2006).  Even though the cost of exercise can be high (e.g. private health clubs) and facilities may not accessible to you, exercise doesn’t have to cost anything, for example walking the dog.  Another reason is having health problems or being physically unable to exercise.  On the other hand, exercising is often a benefit to many health conditions.  Having health problems may be coupled with lack of self-confidence or feeling uncomfortable when put into a sporting situation with others.  This is often the case for people who are overweight or have been inactive for a long time and feel too embarrassed to start exercising. 

Another barrier to participation for many is social exclusion.  This could be influenced by a person’s age, religion, gender, disability or socio-economic status.  For example, for Islamic women it would go against their beliefs to swim unless it was a group session specifically for them with female lifeguards (these sessions do exist).  Even though people aged 16-25 generally have a high rate of participation, women in these age group don’t.  There could be various reasons for this, childcare being one of them.  People aged over 75 also tend to exercise less than the independent population, especially compared to the other group of financially dependent (under 16) who find exercise enjoyable and widely available at grass roots level. 

Even though all of these factors do hinder participation, there is a large focus on making sport socially inclusive.  Many classes and groups are made available which target these groups specifically, for example, chairobics for the elderly, ladies only gyms and swims, and mother and baby groups for people aged 16-25, and leisure centres with crèches.

Most of these barriers to participation can be eradicated, and a lot is being done to help people overcome barriers, but there are still many which must be dealt with by the individual – i.e. those who ‘don’t have the time’.  It’s important to stress the benefits of exercising, especially on the health.  Exercise helps to control weight, can help reduce the risk and symptoms of illnesses (e.g. diabetes), improved mental health and a longer life expectancy.  Sporting clubs and groups are also a great place to meet people similar to you, helping build your self-confidence. 

Bibliography

Gill, A. (2012) Unit 018 Exercise Behaviour and Adherence [Presentation] Sport Psychology, HND Sport Coaching, Chesterfield College, December.

References

Boseley, S. The Guardian 18 July 2012 UK has third most inactive population in Europe [online] Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/18/uk-inactive-population-europe [Accessed 29th December 2012]

The Scottish Government (2006) Chapter Two Overview of Participation and Attitudes [online] Available from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/09/29134901/3 [Accessed 30th December 2012]

Group Leadership

Carron has already stressed the importance of leadership in developing team cohesion (see post 'Group Cohesion'), and it’s also an extremely important factor in team success.  The leader of a group will ‘influence other members of their sporting organisation regarding the selection and attainment of that group’s goals’ (Chandler et al, 2007), in other words they influence the behaviour, and direction and intensity of their efforts.  So, what is it that makes a good leader?  Every leader has a different style of leadership, but they all possess certain characteristics making them respected.  A leader must have good communication skills, confidence, motivated, decisive, determined, and respect for other team members.  This therefore poses the question ‘are you born a leader’?

There are many theories considering leadership in sport, and the debate of state vs. trait has arisen once again.  Initially, research was focused on trait theories, as it was believed that people were born with characteristics that made them good leaders (such as the ones mentioned above) and they would be successful in every situation. But what are the chances of someone being able to lead a team in any given situation, and if it were true why isn’t everyone who has these qualities a leader?  Alternatively, behaviourists (or social learning) believe that leadership is a learnt quality through observation and reciprocation.  The interactionist approach combines both trait and social approaches.  It states that even though leaders are born certain trait making them an ideal leader, they also learn how to be successful from others. 

Not all leaders are successful, simply because they’re not compatible with the team, especially if they’re prescribed leaders.  Carron identified two types of leaders (1981): prescribed and emergent.  A prescribed leader is someone appointed to the position (for example, England football team manager), and an emergent leader is selected by the group once they have proven themselves.  The benefits of having a prescribed leader is that they usually have recognised experience and authority and are able to offer an alternative opinion viewing the situation objectively.  However, the leader may not know the group that well and they may find it difficult to be accepted if they’re disliked or viewed as a threat.  An emergent leader on the other hand will more popular and have the respect of the group already.  Being popular may be a downfall though as it may mean they’re not the best leader, and after a while they may become disliked once they have a position of authority. 

Styles of leadership can be measured on continuums based on their ‘decision making style (autocratic vs. democratic)… and leadership orientation (task-oriented vs. person-oriented)’ (Chandler et al, 2007).  Autocratic leaders make decisions independently without consulting the team and focus on the task, which is beneficial when a decision is needed urgently or the team is large in number.  Democratic leaders on the other hand listen to the opinions of the group and make decisions based on this.  Similar to autocratic leaders, task-oriented leaders are focussed on being successful at the task and display a good knowledge of the sport.  Person-oriented leaders however are concerned more with the well-being of the team and getting the best from each member.  All of these styles of leadership are successful in different situations dependent on the team.  For example, autocratic leadership would be needed if taking a group rock climbing because the situation is dangerous.

Fiedler believed that the type of leadership needed was dependent upon the favourableness of the situation.  Favourableness is measured by leader-member relations, task structure, and leaders position power (MindTools, n.d.).  In a favourable situation the leader would have a strong position in the team, the task would be well structured, and the leader would have a positive and trusting relationship with team members.  In an unfavourable situation the leaders position would be weak, the task structure would be vague, and the relations between leader and team members would be hostile.  Fiedler stated that autocratic task-oriented leaders are best suited to both favourable and unfavourable situations, and democratic person-oriented leaders are best suited to moderately favourable situations.  This is known as Fiedlers Contingency Theory.  It also uses a measure of personality which predisposes a person to have a task or person oriented leadership style, meaning they can only lead in certain situations, which is not necessarily correct as leaders can change for the situation. 

The other most widely used model of leadership is Chelladurai’s Multi-Dimensional Theory (1978).  He categorised the factors that affect leadership into three antecedents: situational characteristics, leader characteristics and member characteristics. 

These antecedents would then determine a further three things from the leader: required behaviour, actual behaviour and preferred behaviour.  Required behaviour is what the leader must do in a certain situation, actual behaviour is what they actually do (determined by their characteristics and experience in a similar situation), and preferred behaviour is how the team desire the leader to behave.  If all of these conditions occur at the same time then performance will increase.  The diagram below explains how the antecedents influence the leaders behaviour, and the consequences that follow:

Picture taken from: http://sportpsychmovies.wikispaces.com/A+League+of+Their+Own+-+MultiDimensional++Model+of+Leadership+in+Sport

So, let’s conclude.  There are many factors which determine successful leadership, not only the leaders traits but also their experience, leadership style (Fiedler), the situation and the characteristics of the group (Chelladurai).  We’ve also found that certain types of leadership are more successful in specific situations dependant on the task and leader-group relations.  For example, a dictator would be more successful when the team aren’t entirely sure what they’re doing and show little respect for their leader.  Finally, we’ve found that performance is best when the leader can act in a way that is both desired by the group and needed by the situation.

Bibliography

Gill, A. (2012) Cohesion and Development [Presentation] Sport Psychology, HND Sport Coaching, Chesterfield College, December.

References Leadership

 

123HelpMe.com (n.d.) Leadership in Sports [online] available from: http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=148576 [Accessed 29^th December]

Chandler, T., Cronin, M., Vamplew, W. (2007) Sport and Physical Education: The Key Concepts (2^nd Ed.) Routledge: Oxon

 

MindTools (n.d.) Fiedler’s Contingency Model [online] http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/fiedler.htm[Accessed 29th December]

Group Cohesion

What is cohesion?

A group is simply a collection of individuals, so what is it that makes that group a team?  For a group of people to become a team they will communicate with each other to work towards a common goal, as well as usually having similar social interests.  This means that what one member of the group does influences another, making them a team.  For example, a student may join an after school netball club, where they will meet people of a similar age whom have similar interests (netball) and common goals (meet new people and be part of a successful netball team).  The desire of the individual to remain in this team is known as group cohesion.

In 1950, Festinger defined cohesion as ‘the total field of forces which act on members to remain in a group’ (Beauchamp, 2007).  Carron further developed this (1998) and defined sport group cohesion as ‘a dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or the satisfaction of members affective needs’ (Beauchamp, 2007). 

Carron believed each group member held perceptions about the success of their team which enabled them to remain as group.   These perceptions which attract the individual to a group take two directions:  task and social.  Task cohesion is how well group members work together to reach a shared goal, and social cohesion ‘relates to the development of and maintenance of various social relationships within the group’ (Horn, 2008).  Carron developed a multi-dimensional model shown below which highlights the group, individual, social and task reasons people are drawn to a sports group:

 From Horn, 2008.

Firstly, how do groups develop?

Tuckman presented a model which suggests there are five stages to group development, they are: orientation, conflict, structure development, work, dissolution.  During stage one, the group has just formed so there are low levels of interaction and high levels of tension as members are conscious of their behaviour.  Stage two is marked by conflict as individuals fight over their roles, goals and team approach.  By stage three, a team is starting to develop as roles, goals and behaviour have been established.  There is also an increase in communication and trust between members.  During the fourth stage, the team actually performs the task, which may take time as the group matures.  The final stage is the dissolution of the team, which could be either planned or unplanned and could therefore cause stress for many members of the team.  The team must be cohesive to reach the final stage, but it is thought it’s necessary for all teams to go through this process to grow and develop as a team in order to deliver the desired results.

Secondly, how do groups develop cohesion?

The cohesion of a group may is affected by a number of factors, such as stability, group and individual satisfaction and the support both the individual and the team receive – the list may be endless.  But Carron developed a model of group cohesion (1982) which categorised factors into  four antecedents: environmental, personal, leadership and team factors.

 Environmental factors may be the constraints which are binding the group, for example; contracts, scholarships, family expectation etc.  The second antecedent, personal factors, is the characteristics of the individual such as their gender, personality, participation motives, as well as the satisfaction they’re receiving.  Cohesiveness is also affected by the leader of the group (Carron’s third antecedent), their leadership style, their ability to communicate efficiently, and the relationships between the leader and group members.  The final antecedent relates to the team as a whole.  For example, is there a collective desire to be successful in reaching a group norm, does the team have a high ability enabling them to reach their goal, and are they stable? 

These four antecedents outlined by Carron lead to group cohesion, but we can expect groups to experience different levels of cohesiveness at different stages of their development.  For example, when a team is newly formed, task cohesion develops faster than social cohesion, specifically in competitive sporting teams.  This is because in the early stages the focus is on performance and task related interactions, and little time is given to building social relationships, which happens gradually over time as result of group interaction.   However, when the group has a low ability and task performance is not always successful, social cohesion may always be relatively low as individuals members are not being satisfied (Horn, 2008).  There are instances however when coaches specifically attempt to build social cohesion to overcome this in order to improve performance. 

Even though development of cohesion is a natural process there things a coach can do to push the process along a little.  Players must fully understand not only their role within the team, but also the role and responsibilities of the others within the team so they can focus on the task, which too they must understand clearly.  The coach should deal with all players fairly and equally so they have respect for both the coach and other players, building both task and social cohesion.  It could also be beneficial to have regular team meeting where players can discuss their concerns, which will solve problems hindering performance but also build trust and reduce possible tension.

How does cohesion effect the development of an effective team?

So, what does all this really mean for sporting performance?  Well, we’ve already discussed the belief that individuals wish to remain part of a group if they perceive it be successful, meaning that members of groups which are cohesive have a higher rate of satisfaction and therefore stay with the group.  Highly cohesive teams perform better than those with low cohesion, especially when the task is highly interactive.  Alongside this, success as a team increases cohesion.  Task cohesion is most important to achieve success as the individuals need to be united in achieving their goal, whether they like each other or not doesn’t always matter.  For example, during the 1990’s the Chicago Bulls dominated the NBA, yet supposedly didn’t talk to each other off of court (Brandon, n.d.).

Bibliography

Gill, A. (2012) Cohesion and Development [Presentation] Sport Psychology, HND Sport Coaching, Chesterfield College, December.
 

References

Beauchamp, M. & Eys, A. (ed) (2007) Group Dynamics in Exercise and Sport Psychology: Contemporary Themes. Routledge: Oxon

Brandon, R. (n.d.) Team Sports: Team Cohesion and Success: What Is the Link? [online] Available from: http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/team-sports-team-cohesion-and-success-what-is-the-link-78 [Accessed 28th December 2012]

Mackenzie, B. (2004) Group Dynamics [online] Available from: http://www.brianmac.co.uk/group.htm [Accessed 28^th December 2012]