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]