By the end of this chapter, you should able to:

 define groups and teams and understand the formation of groups

 explain what is meant by team cohesion and discuss the relationship
between cohesion and performance
 outline social facilitation effects and critically examine the home advantage
effect
 describe and evaluate explanations for social facilitation with particular
reference to drive theory and evaluation apprehension
 discuss negative effects of team membership, including social loafing and
groupthink
 apply theories of leadership to understanding the role of team leadership
 understand the significance of the coach–athlete relationship.
 As social animals, we spend a considerable amount
of our time in groups. A group has been defined by
Moorhead and Griffin (1998) as “two or more persons who
interact with one another such that each person influences
and is influenced by each other person’’. A team is more
than just a group. Moorhead & Griffin define a team as ‘‘a
small number of people with complementary skills who are
committed to a common purpose, common performance
goals, and an approach for which they hold themselves
mutually accountable’’.
 A team in the broader sense is not necessarily a
group, because the members of a team can be working for
a common aim without ever coming into contact with one
another. For example, the Team is clearly devoted to a
common purpose, but it is not necessarily a group,
because its members could fulfil their team roles without
swimmers, boxers and long-distance runners ever meeting
and directly influencing one another. Usually, however,
when we refer to a team in sport psychology we are also
referring to a group of people who play together and have
a powerful influence on each other.
 Merely placing a collection of individuals together does
not in itself create a group or a team. Tuckman & Jensen (1977)
suggested that when groups come together they go through
five distinct stages.
1. Forming Stage- the group members get to know each other,
and basic rules for the conduct of group members are
established.
2. Storming Stage- members compete for status in the group,
and group members take on different roles.
3. Norming Stage- the group settles down, and group members
develop attachments to each other and to the group.
4. Performing Stage: the group members become oriented toward
the task they have come together for, and begin to achieve their
goals.
5. Adjourning Stage: the task of the group has been accomplished,
and it drifts apart.

As Sutton (1994) points out, although this model of group

formation is useful, not all groups operate in this manner. For
example, in football, unless a new team is being started, it is
unusual for a group to form in the way described by Tuckman &
Jensen (1977) because new players join the team at different
intervals. For an individual player joining an existing team, things
are likely to be rather different.
 The word cohesion literally means sticking together.
Festinger et. al. (1950) defined group cohesion as the sum of the
forces that influence members in whether to remain part of a
group. A highly cohesive group is likely to be more united and
committed to success than a group low in cohesion. It is often
said that a team is more than just the sum of the individual
players. This is because the cohesiveness of a team can be just as
important as the talent of individual team members. Most teams
are usually composed of brilliant individual performers collectively
underperform. This is probably due to the fact that the team
members have somehow failed to ‘gel’ together. This is an
example of lack of cohesion.
 Widmeyer et al (1985) distinguished between two
different aspects of team cohesion. Each member of a team
has a view of the team as a unit (this is known as the
members’ (1) group integration) and of every individual
within it (this is called the (2) individual attractions). The
members may also have different perceptions of the team
and its members as regards their sporting performance and
their social interactions. In other words, you can think of
your team-mates quite differently as individuals and as a
team, and as people and co-competitors.
 In a recent UK study, Holt & Sparkes (2001) studied
a university football team over the course of one season.
Data were gathered by means of observation and
interviews. It was concluded that the following four factors
affect team cohesion: (1) a clear role for each member of
the team, (2) willingness to make personal sacrifices for the
good of the team, (3) quality of communication between
team members and (4) shared goals for the team as a
whole
 Thinking more broadly, Carron (1993) identified
four types of factors that affect the cohesiveness of a team.
(1) Situational factors include the physical environment in
which the team meets and the size of the group.
(2) Individual factors refer to the characteristics of the
athletes that make up the teams. For example, the
satisfaction of individuals in being in the team can have a
powerful influence on cohesiveness. (3) Leadership factors
which Team coaches, captains and managers have a role in
helping to make the team cohesive. (4) Team factors
include past shared successes, communication between
members and having collective goals.
 Making a group of individuals into an effective
team is an important part of a coach’s task. Strategies to
develop team cohesion are known as team building. Carron
et al (1997) offer a four-point model for team building,
which aims (1) to increase team distinctiveness, for
example, by training attire; (2) to increase social
cohesiveness, for example, by social events; (3) to clarify
team goals, for example, by having collaborative ‘goal of
the day’ sessions; and (4) to improve team
communication, for example, by holding regular meetings.
 There are several other ways in which the presence of
other people can affect our behaviour and performance. Under
some circumstances, the presence of other people, such as
competitors, enhances our performance. However, under other
circumstances, our effort and our ability to make decisions can
be adversely affected by others, leading to poor performance.
The term ‘social facilitation’ describes the ways in which our
performance can be affected by the presence of others.
 Janis (1982) identified the phenomenon of
groupthink, which occurs when group cohesion is so great that
it prevents group members from voicing opinions that go
against the majority. Groupthink can cause serious problems
for teams, because the entire team can become so focused on
a particular goal that important considerations of practicality
and safety are abandoned. She described the symptoms of
groupthink. The group feels that it cannot make a wrong
decision, and that fate will support it. Group members decide
not to ‘rock the boat’ by arguing with the majority. Those who
do argue are made to conform, or ignored.
 Leadership has been defined by Moorhead and
Griffin (1998) as “the use of no coercive influence to
direct and coordinate the activities of group members to
meet a goal.” Leadership may be informal or formal.
When we appoint a team coach and a captain, we know
that they have formal leadership roles. However, other
team members might also take on informal roles in
which they influence and inspire others.
 There is more than one way to lead people. An early
but still influential distinction is that between authoritarian,
laissez-faire and democratic styles of leadership (Lewin et al
1939). The Authoritarian Leader makes decisions alone and
expects unquestioning obedience from the group. This approach
has advantages and disadvantages in sport. The main
advantage is that team members can still be directed toward
purposeful action when they are exhausted, stressed and
disillusioned.
 By contrast, the Laissez-faire Leader leaves group
members to get on with the task at hand without
interference. Such leaders may assist individuals, but do
not attempt to organise or motivate the group as a whole.
Whilst being a member of a group with laissez-faire
leadership might allow you to explore your talents without
being unnecessarily restricted, leaders who can operate
only in a laissez-faire manner often fail to motivate groups
to achieve their potential or cope with crises.
 Lewin’s third category, the Democratic Leader, can
be seen as a halfway house between authoritarian and
laissez-faire styles. The democratic leader takes decisions
and enforces them, but decisions always take account of
the views of the rest of the group. Democratic leadership
can cause difficulties when very rapid decision making is
required in an emergency, but in most cases this is the
most successful style of leadership. Lewin believed that
each style of leadership works in different situations, and
that the best leaders can use all three styles as
appropriate.
 Early psychological approaches to leadership
emphasised the importance of being a certain type of
person, that is, having certain personality traits in order to
be a good leader. This great-person approach depends on
three main assumptions. Firstly, all successful leaders have
certain personality traits in common. Secondly, the rest of
us ‘mere mortals’ do not share the characteristics of great
leaders. Thirdly, the traits that make someone a leader in
one situation will also enable that person to lead
successfully in quite different situations.
 Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991) identified the following
eight characteristics associated with successful leadership:
(1) drive (ambition and persistence), (2) honesty,
(3) motivation to lead, (4) self-confidence, (5) intelligence,
(6) expertise in the purpose of the group, (7) creativity
(imagination and originality) and (8) flexibility. Kirkpatrick
& Locke concluded that “leaders do not have to be great
men or women by being intellectual geniuses or omniscient
prophets, but they do need to have the “right stuff” and
this stuff is not equally present in all people.”
 According to contingency theory, the success of
leadership depends on the characteristics of leaders and the
situation in which they are leading. Fiedler (1967) identified
two categories of leader, those who are (1) Task-Oriented,
that is, their main preoccupation is the task of the group, and
those who are (2) Person-Oriented, that is, their main
preoccupation is the members of the group.
 Athletes spend much time with their coaches, and
rely on them for information, direction, feedback and
support. All these factors require trust – advice and
direction will be better followed and feedback better
received in the context of a good relationship. Jowett &
Cockerill (2002) suggest that the coach–athlete relationship
can be understood in terms of three key variables:
closeness, co-orientation and complementarity:
 Closeness- is the emotional aspects of the relationship,
referring to the attachment between coach and athlete.
 Co-orientation- is the cognitive aspect of the
relationship, referring to the commonality of knowledge,
views and concerns between coach and athlete.
 Complementarity- is the behavioural aspect of the
relationship, referring to the interpersonal behaviour
between coach and athlete, in particular their effective
cooperation.
 Chelladurai (1993) points out that all coaching
activities involve decision making, and he suggests that we
can understand the leadership displayed by coaches in
terms of their style of decision making. The main focus of
the model is on understanding when athletes will actively
participate in team decision making. Within this model,
decision making is affected by the following seven factors:
 Time Pressure- when decisions have to be made
very quickly, the coach often has to make them
without athlete participation. Less urgent decisions are
more likely to involve athletes.
 Decision Importance- when problems can be
resolved by several options athlete participation is
more likely. When there is a single correct answer
(such as which goalkeeper to use), the coach is more
likely to make the decision singly.
 Information Location: whoever possesses the necessary
information is likely to take a role in decision making. When
the coach is the only person in possession of all the facts,
they are likely to make a decision single-handed; otherwise
athletes with specialist knowledge are likely to be consulted.
 Problem Complexity: the more complex the problem, the
more likely it is that only the coach will possess all the
information necessary to make the decision; therefore, he is
more likely to do so without participation by athletes.
 Group Acceptance: a coach is likely to make a unilateral
decision either when it will be fully accepted by the team
or when its acceptance is not of primary importance. For
example, a popular footballer playing his last professional
game may tire early. In this case, the coach/manager
might wish to substitute a younger, fitter player. However,
the decision will also take account of the fact that it might
be resented by team-mates and might lower team morale
and concentration for the remainder of the match.
 Coach’s Power: coaches may exert power over athletes
by means of reward, punishment, the authority of their
position, the admiration of athletes, and their superior
knowledge and experience. The greater their power, the
more likely they are to make unilateral decisions.
 Group Integration: the more integrated a team, the
more likely its members are to participate in decision
making. The term integration refers to the extent to which
the team members have good interpersonal relationships
and equal status.
 Influenced by these seven factors, the coach adopts
one of three decision-making styles. In the autocratic style,
the coach makes the final decision unilaterally. Alternatively,
the participative style involves the full participation of
athletes, the coach simply functioning as a group member.
Finally, the delegative style involves delegating decision
making to one or more athletes.