Upload
jay-smith
View
75
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Team Cohesion Through Competition 1
How to Achieve Team Cohesion through Competition in Sport: An Organizational Model
by:
Jay K. Smith
Daphne, Alabama
May, 2015
Team Cohesion Through Competition 2
How to Achieve Team Cohesion through Competition in Sport: An Organizational Model
Team Cohesion Through Competition 3
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize a practical method for coaches of any sport
team to improve team performance and cohesion through inter-squad competition and intra-
squad cooperation. While the concept of intra-team competition to improve cohesion and team
performance is not new, this paper describes a practical, task driven approach for coaches to use.
For purposes of clarity, American football is the example used to describe this approach.
Although, this task driven competition format can be applied to other sports teams, American
football has more distinctive task oriented positions than other sports, thus providing simplicity.
Also, football teams use the most formal off-season competitive scrimmage strategies in which
the first team offense and first team defense play each other in order for the coaching staff to
assess players and test game schemes. This widespread tactic is useful for coaches, but it can be
argued this creates division with the rest of the team. In-fighting amongst the individuals in each
squad (i.e. wide receivers, offensive line, etc…) can prevail, and a counter-productive attitude
may develop that breaks any cohesive advantage gained as players begin to focus on the amount
of playing time they get in relation to their teammates. However, if coaching staffs adopt a task
oriented system in which the squad coaches encourage group success and teamwork, and the
coordinator level harnesses the competitive spirit, players will be more likely to encourage each
other to become better. Pre-season scrimmages should not be scored in a traditional, regular
season-like format. Instead, scrimmages should be scored by accumulating points for successful
plays executed by any player from a specific squad against any opposing squad with naturally
opposing tasks. This means receivers would be competing two levels up at the Coordinator
level, and not amongst themselves. Building off past research, this should also diffuse anxiety
Team Cohesion Through Competition 4
levels of players since each cohesive group will be focused on building up the less talented
players, instead of trying to dominate them for increased playing time.
Keywords: competition, cooperation, group dynamics, motivation, team cohesion
Team Cohesion Through Competition 5
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize a practical method for coaches of any sport
team to improve team performance and cohesion through inter-squad competition and intra-
squad cooperation. While the concept of intra-team competition to improve cohesion and
performance in sports teams is not new, this paper describes a task driven approach for coaches
to incorporate. For purposes of clarity, American football is the example used to describe this
approach.
Although this task driven competition format can be applied to other sports teams,
American football has more distinctive task oriented positions than most other sports, thus
provides simplicity. Football teams also have the most formal off-season competitive scrimmage
strategies in which the first team offense and defense play each other in order for the coaching
staff to assess players and test game schemes. This widespread tactic is useful for coaches, but it
can also be argued that this creates division with the rest of the team. In-fighting amongst the
individuals in each squad (wide receivers, offensive line, etc.) can prevail, and a counter-
productive attitude may develop that breaks any cohesive advantage gained as individual players
begin to focus on the amount of playing time receive in relation to their teammates.
If coaching staffs adopt a task oriented system in which the squad coaches encourage
group success and teamwork, and the coordinator level is where the competitive spirit is
harnessed, players will be more likely to encourage each other to improve their performance.
Simply stated, the pre-season scrimmages should not be scored in a traditional regular season
format, but should be scored by accumulating points for successful plays executed by any player
from each squad against an opposing squad whose tasks are in opposition naturally. This
structure would encourage players that play the same position to cooperate in order to improve
Team Cohesion Through Competition 6
each other’s performance. A cooperative attitude at the lowest level of a football team’s
hierarchy will lower the anxiety levels of many players early in the team’s formation, before the
season starts (Teymori, Khaki, & Nikbakhsh, 2014). For example, the entire wide receiving
squad, whether first team starters or bench players, would receive points for every completed
pass. The defensive backs would receive points for every pass not completed because they
batted the ball away, intercepted it, or disrupted the play by preventing the wide receiver from
running the appropriate route. This means receivers would be competing two levels up at the
coordinator level, and not amongst themselves. Building off past research, this should also
diffuse anxiety levels of players since each cohesive group will be focused on improving the
performance of the less talented players, instead of trying to dominate each other for increased
playing time.
Discussion
The foundation of this process is for the coaching staff to encourage unit cooperation in
distinct groups that are either one level up or down as described in the coaching hierarchy (see
Figure 1). At the same time, coaches two levels up encourage competition. In a pure, fully
staffed football team, this would leave the head coach as an active observer who is not
emotionally attached to any individual player. The head coach is responsible for managing the
competition between the offense and defense, and is free to concentrate his or her attention on
team schemes and strategy without being bogged down with individual performance.
Team Cohesion Through Competition 7
Although most football teams require some coaches to perform two or more positions, all
teams follow a standard hierarchy and division labor (see Figure 1).
The head coach typically has three coordinators that manage the offense, defense, and special
teams, respectively. These coordinators in turn, have individual position coaches that train and
manage each player. While the coordinators are responsible for the overall schemes of either the
offense or defense, position coaches are charged with the development of individual players that
are grouped together by function. The wide receiver coach, for example, is in charge of the
development of all wide receivers. It is also important to understand that most of the tasks that
position coaches train are individual tasks such as catching, running, tackling, or blocking.
These tasks, by nature, are coactive tasks. Therefore, the majority of tasks taught by position
coaches are individual efforts whose outcome is aggregated for the team’s success or failure.
These coactive tasks are similar to a collegiate golf team in which each golfer’s score is not
dependent on the other players, but does influence the team’s overall performance. Because
these coactive tasks are fundamental skills of the particular position players, these tasks are the
primary focus early in the training cycle when the team is first being formed. Typically, coaches
spend this time focusing on player competition in order to set an aggressive tone early in the
season. Aggressive and often negative language is used while running fundamental drills during
practice and even during conditioning workouts. However, if coaches use this time early in the
Figure 1: Standard organizational chart for a football team
Team Cohesion Through Competition 8
training cycle for cooperative teambuilding attitudes, versus the usual competitive philosophy of
the players fighting among themselves for starting positions, position coaches will be able to
identify the various informal roles within their particular squad. Instead of encouraging
competition between individuals of the same position, rather encouraging cooperation among
those players, the position coach will have formed a group that is in constant interaction. Not
only will this interaction be constant as players are working together and not as individuals, their
interaction will be positive in nature. This positive interaction will help the position coaches
quickly identify the informal leaders since the players will be focused on working together
instead of trying to beat each other out for a spot in the starting lineup (Cope, Eys, Beauchamp,
Schinke, & Bosselut, 2011).
Traditionally, the position coach level is where the intra-team competition occurs, as
individual receivers compete against each other for playing time and the accolades placed on
them by the coaches. In this system, there is little incentive for players to encourage other
players to be better, because the starter may risk losing playing time. This player versus player
competition at the lowest level contradicts a multitude of research that proves when coaches
engage in positive, task-oriented interactions with players, a higher perception of team cohesion
and improved performance is achieved (Carron & Eys, Group Dynamics In Sport Fourth Edition,
2012, pp. 284-288). Thus, when position coaches encourage competition at the the lowest level
within the hierarchy of a football team and in the smallest groups, these coaches are missing
opportunities to establish a team comprised of many smaller, cohesive teams that can influence
the overall performance later in the training cycle as games approach. Not only will small
groups of players with like task responsibilities be cohesive early on in the training cycle, but
roles and norms of appropriate attitudes of those players will be clearly defined. Role clarity is
Team Cohesion Through Competition 9
important to establish early in the formation of any sports teams, and the more clarity assigned
those roles, the more cohesion and collective efficacy will be present (Hodge, Henry, & Smith,
2014). Meanwhile, before and during the season, most coaches attempt to shift their focus on the
cohesion of the entire team. This shift conflicts with months of players competing with each
other, and is arguably too late for the team to reap any benefits they would enjoy from a new
practice of cooperation among players. This shift from competition to cooperation can be
confusing to many players, thus resulting in interpersonal conflict and a lack of cohesion among
players (see Figure 2).
One level up from the position coaches is the offensive, defensive, and special team
coordinators. The coordinator is two levels up from the players. Because of the separation
between the coordinator and the players, the coordinator can safely encourage competition when
interacting with players as individuals. The coordinators’ emphasis on competition would negate
any pitfalls of social loafing that may occur among groups of players of any given function. A
leading cause of social loafing, the phenomenon in which individual effort is reduced when
participating as part of a group, in sports teams is that many players will become too secure in
Figure 2: Traditional division for scrimmages. Most teams pit first team offense versus first or second team defense to analyze player performance. This requires coaches to assess individual players against different opponents, or rotate players into starting positions causing players to feel as though they are competing for playing time. Therefore, there is no incentive for one player to help another to get better.
Team Cohesion Through Competition 10
their status on the team as either a starting player or a substitute player. If players do not believe
consequences, good or bad, exist for the amount of effort the player puts forth, then social
loafing can occur during practices (Carron & Eys, Group Dynamics In Sport Fourth Edition,
2012; Bohlander & Snell, 2010 ). Two-level-down coaching focuses on individual performance
and allows for self-enhancing attribution that will increase the motivation to seek self-
improvement by each individual (Carron & Eys, Group Dynamics In Sport Fourth Edition, 2012,
p. 293 and 334). Meanwhile, the Position Coach is constantly reinforcing teamwork and
improvement, as he or she is charged with the performance of every player that plays a certain
position (see Figure 3). This method of one-level-down coaching shifts the focus of the players
to team enhancing attribution at the earliest time and the lowest level. This shift of emphasis on
the team’s performance by the smallest groups of players institutes social norms of individual
responsibility in relationship to team success or failure (Vincer & Loughead, 2010). While this
conflict between coaches may seem to be disruptive, the level of interaction between each coach
and each player is not balanced. Therefore the cooperative encouragement of the position coach
would have more impact on individual players when it comes to player-to-player interaction.
Since the position coach would monitor individual, skill-centric drills early in the training
season, a sense of cooperation would first be established throughout the entire team. Therefore,
long before the spring practice game, the composition of the team would be a collection of
smaller teams whose focus is to make each particular team better through cooperation. This part
of the theory captures the conclusions of Carron et al. study in which they hypothesized that
“increased cohesion would be a catalyst for increased coordination in sports where task
interactions are essential for group success” (Carron, Colman, & Wheeler, Cohesion and
Performance in Sport: A Meta Analysis, 2002, p. 172). Although Carron et al. found that there is
Team Cohesion Through Competition 11
no cohesion-performance correlation based on task type, using a Group Environment
Questionnaire to provide an operational measure of team cohesion, they did find evidence that
coactive sports have a stronger cohesion-performance relationship. In other words, increased
cooperation from coactive competitors, such as the individuals that play the same position, raised
the performance of the group. For example, the collective group of wide receivers would
perform better in their assigned tasks if they all viewed themselves as part of a cooperative
whole, despite the fact each individual’s ability to accomplish a given task does not affect the
other receivers’ ability to do the same task. (Carron, Colman, & Wheeler, Cohesion and
Performance in Sport: A Meta Analysis, 2002, p. 182)
Once the team’s training shifts toward more collective preparation, running plays for
example, the individual players would already be cohesive in smaller groups, and have improved
each other’s performance. As the groups of players are organized by functions without
delineation of starting players and bench players each group would begin to compete against the
other groups with the position coaches continually encouraging cooperation in order to defeat
another position coach and those players. Scoring of inter-squad scrimmages should be
conducted by the functions that are required by each position. During the scrimmage, position
coaches are still encouraging cooperation within each group, but the coordinator challenges each
individual to beat out the other players for a spot in the starting lineup (see Figure 3). Receivers
are cycled through plays against the defense, the receiver coach is actively keeping score of how
many catches the whole group of receivers make. Meanwhile, the coordinator is challenging
each receiver to be the best receiver of the group by providing rewards for them.
Rewards should be centered on an appearance of expert power. For this example, the
wide receiver who makes the most catches is awarded by being assigned as a trainer for the other
Team Cohesion Through Competition 12
positions that may have similar functions, such as the tight ends and running backs that often
catch passes. Thus, the coordinator would be effectively encouraging cooperation one level
down as players of different positions would join together to create a better offense in order to
compete against the defense and vice versa. This model also works for other positions. This
includes offensive linemen teaching running backs pass blocking techniques, running backs
teaching receivers how to break tackles after the catch, and even physical training like tight ends
teaching offense linemen techniques to improve quickness and agility.
The key factor of success is that all of the coaches, whether a position coach or
coordinator, pay close attention to the interpersonal style they use when interacting with various
players. This may be particularly challenging for the coordinators who may be required to shift
from a style of interaction that is competitive and aggressive with a player at a certain time and a
style that is positive and cooperative with that same player, but different situation. As Hodge et
al. determined, the techniques team leaders use when interacting with their teammates greatly
Figure 3: Players should be grouped by function. In other words, all wide receivers are grouped together, and scored as a whole during scrimmages. Cooperation is among all of the players that perform a function. This encourages the most skilled to help and encourage the less skilled, thus everyone gets better. Competition is between different functions and offense vs. defense. Therefore, there is more competition for everyone, but the functions must work together to win. In other words, the running backs must work together because their cumulative score is counted against every other squad. Note: due to the unique nature of Special Teams, and the fact that these players often are part of another squad, they are removed from this study.
Team Cohesion Through Competition 13
influences the team’s environment (Hodge, Henry, & Smith, 2014; Sullivan, 2013). Therefore,
in order to promote a strong sense of competition and to defeat social loafing, a defensive
coordinator may use intense, harsh, and possibly negative language and mannerisms when one of
the Linebackers misses a tackle. Since the player, a linebacker in this case, is two levels down,
the interaction will be brief and may spark cohesion amongst the whole group of linebackers as
his teammates try to defend the mistake. The position coach who will have longer, more in
depth interactions with that player, augments this. However, when the offense and defense
square off during scrimmages in order to practice unit schemes, the coordinator should use
positive, reinforcing language that explains how the player’s missed tackle affected the entire
defense. This should inspire not only other linebackers to help their teammate, but also players
of other positions to help demonstrate how to shed the opposing blockers so that the next time
that linebacker will not miss the tackle.
Figure 4: Competition should be through the coordinator, or two levels up. One level up coaches should encourage teamwork in order for the Offense to win as a whole. One level up coaches should encourage WRs teaching other WRs on catching techniques or blocking techniques based on these individual skills, not overall performance. This creates the Primary No Competition Zones (NCZ) outlined in red. The Coordinator should develop Secondary No Competition Zones, outlined in yellow, that encourage inter-group cooperation such as OL teaching RBs how to pass block better. This second NCZ is managed by the Coordinator for cooperation, but encourages competition within each squad by the individual players. The Offensive Coordinator is two levels removed, and therefore able to make assessments without causing conflict.
Team Cohesion Through Competition 14
This type of specialized interaction between coach and player will reinforce role
acceptance among the team. To further the above example, when the defensive coordinator calls
one of the linemen to teach the linebacker how to avoid the block in order to make the tackle, the
chosen lineman should be a team captain and leader (see Figure 4). This provides the team
captain role clarity and diffuses any role conflict among the players because the coordinator
provided the necessary expert and legitimate power. Thus, the lineman’s self-efficacy in the role
of team leader and captain is increased (Carron & Eys, Group Dynamics In Sport Fourth Edition,
2012, p. 181). Furthermore, Benson et al. proved the importance of an athlete’s perception of his
or her role and the roles of teammates when it comes to group cohesion. Benson et al.’s 2013
study determined that players would be more accepting of a leader’s role as the team captain if
they perceive that the role has meaning and importance. By tasking various players with the
duties of training less skilled players, the coordinator and position coaches are displaying the
importance of the captain’s role long before the first game when the captains are announced and
walk onto the field for the coin flip (Benson, Eys, Surya, Dawson, & Scjneider, 2013, p. 273).
This process of two levels competition and one level cooperation facilitates important
behaviors among the coaching staff that will influence the team’s cohesion. In their 2014 article,
Zakrajsek et al. noted the importance of the behaviors of the coaches on team cohesion. By
creating a competitive and cooperative atmosphere among the different levels of the team’s
hierarchy, the coaching staff can show a competitive or cooperative attitude with each other
based on the performance of their players. This can further tighten the various teams within the
team as their coach is subjected to similar interactions with the next level coach. Also, once the
offensive and defensive units scrimmage in the collective training block, the position coaches
Team Cohesion Through Competition 15
will display a cooperative attitude, thus influencing the attitudes of the players (Zakrjsek,
Abildso, Hurst, & Watson, 2007).
Conclusion
In conclusion, coaching staff of sport teams should closely analyze the organization of
their team and the method of pre-season training in order to capitalize on previously published
studies and conclusions that identified the influences competition and cooperation have on team
cohesion. While team hierarchy among coaching staffs is critical to the operations of the team,
especially during pre-season training, coaches should include the players as the lowest level of
the hierarchy. This not only allows coaches to organize the players by function, which many
already do, but also allows a framework on how coach-player interactions can be focused to
achieve an attitude of cooperation or competition amongst the players at specified times in the
training cycle. This type of organizational system allows a sense of cooperation among players
of a specific function or position, thus capitalizing on the benefits of a cohesive group at the
earliest time. Two-levels-up coaching focuses on competition among individuals will
simultaneously capitalize on the benefits that strong competition provides, including preventing
social loafing and increasing self-motivation to improve performance by each player on the team.
Applications to Other Sports
Although American Football was used as an example for this concept, this organizational
competition concept can easily be applied to other team sports. One caveat to applying this
concept to other sports is that the team must be relatively large similar to American football. If
the team is too small, the separation of hierarchal level will not be great enough and would not
contain the necessary diversity in players or sport-required tasks. Also, the sport must be task
interrelated in that each player’s actions directly impact other players on the field. Therefore
Team Cohesion Through Competition 16
team sports in which the performance of an individual is simply aggregated to create a team
score would not have the wide variety of tasks to create the necessary interaction. Therefore,
team sports such as wrestling, tennis, and golf would not benefit or be able to appropriately apply
the techniques described in this paper. However, coaches of soccer, rugby, and lacrosse teams
could benefit greatly from the use of this concept.
For example, a rugby teams are often divided into Forwards and Backs. Forwards are
traditionally the larger, more power based players, while the backs are speed and skill based. As
a result, the coaching staff has two primary assistant coaches for the forwards and the backs
respectively. These assistant coaches can be viewed in the same context as the offensive and
defensive coordinators in American football. Forwards and backs are further divided into
specific positions based on physical attributes and task responsibilities. The forwards are further
divided into the tight five and the loose forwards, or back row. The tight five form the core of
the scrum, and are the largest, most powerful players on the field. These five players, not
including bench substitutes, bind together by holding onto each other tightly in preparation to
engage the opposing tight five. These players physically restrain each other by gripping the
uniform of the others, including the other team. As a result, speed and quickness are useful
attributes for a tight five player in the open field, but are not required since the player cannot
transition into open field play until released by another player during the majority of playing
time.
The loose forwards on the other hand are bound to the edges of the tight five, but are not
restricted by the bind of another player. One of the key tasks of a loose forward is to
immediately put pressure on the opposing ball carrier as soon as a defensive scrum is over.
Therefore, physical size and quickness are both important characteristics for loose forwards, but
Team Cohesion Through Competition 17
neither is a primary concern. In other words, loose forwards must be strong and fast, but not the
strongest or the fastest on the team. Also, the tight five are more likely to carry the ball in traffic
on offense, similar to a fullback in American football, and defend in large clusters during free
play. While the loose forwards also operate in large clusters and confined areas, they are more
likely to support the backs in the open field whether on offense or defense. Consequently, open
field tackling, passing skills, and the ability to break tackles are more important skills for a loose
forward than they are for a tight five player. Similar division of the backs should be done in
order to improve specific skills required. That being said, rugby is a fluid sport in which players
from different positions may find themselves being required to execute various skills of the other
positions. Therefore, cooperative and competitive interaction would benefit a rugby player
greatly. The same could be said for soccer, lacrosse, and any other task interdependent sport
with a large number of players required.
Team Cohesion Through Competition 18
Works CitedBenson, A. J., Eys, M., Surya, M., Dawson, K., & Scjneider, M. (2013). Athlete's Perceptions of
Role Acceptance in Interdependant Sport Teams. The Sport Psychologist, 269-280.
Bohlander, G., & Snell, S. (2010). Managing Human Resources Edition 15. Mason, OH: South-Western, Cengage Learning.
Carron, A. V., & Eys, M. A. (2012). Group Dynamics In Sport Fourth Edition. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University.
Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., & Wheeler, J. (2002). Cohesion and Performance in Sport: A Meta Analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 168-184.
Carron, A. V., Hausenblas, H. A., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2003). The Psychology of Physical Activity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cope, C. J., Eys, M. A., Beauchamp, M. R., Schinke, R. J., & Bosselut, G. (2011). Informal Roles on Sport Teams. International Journal Of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19-30.
Hentschel, S., Muhlhuesser, G., & Sliwka, D. (2012). The Impact of Managerial Change on Perfrmance. The Role of Team Heterogeneity. CESinfo Group.
Hodge, K., Henry, G., & Smith, W. (2014). A Case Study of Ecellence in Elite Sport: Motivational Climate in a World Champion Team. Sport Psychologist, 60-74.
Sullivan, P. (2013). Humor Styles as a Predictor of Satisfaction Within Sports Teams. De Gruyter Mouton, 343-349.
Teymori, S., Khaki, A. A., & Nikbakhsh, R. (2014). The Relationship Between Team Cohesion and Anxiety on Team Sports Student Athletes. Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences, 414-417.
USA Rugby. (2013, March). Level 200 Coaching Course. American Rugby Model.
Vincer, D., & Loughead, T. M. (2010). The Relationship Among Athlete Leadership Behaviors and Cohesion in Team Sports. The Sport Psychologist, 448-467.
Zakrjsek, R. A., Abildso, C. G., Hurst, J. R., & Watson, J. C. (2007). The Relationships Among Coaches' and Athletes' Perceptions of Coaching Staff Cohesion, Team Cohesion, and Performance. Retrieved from Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology: http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol191ss3/CoachingStaffCohesion.html