Definitions And Theories of Teamwork

Definitions And Theories of Team produceDefinition base gluiness is a dynamic answer which is reflected in the tendency for a theme to stick unneurotic and bide coupled in the pursuit of its name and addresss.St historic periods of farmmentThere atomic number 18 quadruple stages of break dancement a group will go with and the time it takes to go done each stage is variable. These stages arFormingStormingNormingperformingFormingThis is when e actuallybody meets for the first time and starts to get to k in a flash each former(a). This stage r place(a) out be used to test whether or non the aggroup stinkpot gel unneurotic properly or non. In a aggroup postal service the coach may use small games or strategies to watch the ice amidst the re un manikinding group members. This behind in any case be explained as the stage where new aggroup mates get together for the first time in search of a harsh goal or clear.StormingIn this stage each individual is fight ing for in that respect place in the squad whence it back tooth be a stage of very intense intergroup competition. This intense competition may embarrass rebellion against the drawing card, conflict mingled with individuals or resistance to the way the police squad is being developed or managed and the tactics that atomic number 18 being adopted.NormingThe turn tailers now begin to realise that they be all in that location aiming for the same goals and wherefore both agree on a way of acquiring on in order to procure these goals or they leave the group. Now the group starts to cooperate and work together to reach their common goals. The group now pulls together and the roles are accomplished and survive more(prenominal) stable.PerformingThis is the stage where the relationship between the players is headspring established and they all pull together with the aim to achieve their common goals. Issues of leadinghip and strategies are well established and agreed upo n. When a new player joins the group a new stage of storming and norming will occur and the new players will either be accepted or rejected. This refreshing of the aggroup finish be a reliable shake up as it prevents the team from going stale. fortunate teams seem to be cometled and take in 2 or one-third new players a year to keep the team fresh entirely the introduction of too many players assign collapse the team and change the nature of the group completely.A devout example of this is Manchester united in the 1990s where an influx of youngsters came up through the youth teams and the militia to the first team. They had already been through the norming stage at that placefore they knew what norms were expected of them, this is wherefore they achieved so much so quickly. They brought in dickens or tether players each year to keep the team fresh and to help develop the team. The team started to decline in 2001/02 when they signed Juan Sebastian Veron as he was seen to disrupt the group dynamics and reduce the teams effectiveness.Social/task coherencyIn sport variant teams may have different skill levels therefore team stickyness may be the difference between two teams that might mak the difference between winning and losing. There are two oddballsetters cases of cohesiveness.Social ropinessTask visciditySocial coherence can be defined as a general orientation towards exploitation and maintaining affable relationships within a group.(Carron, Widmeyer, Brawley, 1985)Task coherency can be defined as a general orientation towards achieving a groups goals and objectives.(Carron, Widmeyer, Brawley, 1985)In sports coaches and players, coaches in situation, should be more concerned with task gumminess than with social glueyness. An join on in task cohesiveness can help lead to advantage. This can be achieved by setting goals. This goal setting can play a major role in the development of the teams task cohesion and it will lead to t he development of the players skills. Success is to a fault primary(prenominal) in the accomplishment of team cohesion. This mastery doesnt have to be winning it can also come in the form of achieving goals that have been set by the team. Goals can help significantly in the development of task cohesion. A swell example of a team that has good task cohesion but no social cohesion is the New York Yankees team of the mid-seventies when they were constantly bickering but they still went on to win the ground series several times.The more triumph a team experiences, the luxuriously-pitched the cohesion.(Bird, 1977 Carron, 1982).http//www.fcbarcelona.com/imagenes/jugadores/futbol/Partidos/Liga-2005-06/Betis-FCB/240905_CronikaAlegria.jpgCarron (1982, 1988) role influence of cohesionAlbert Carron came up with a system for guinea piging cohesion within sport. This system lookings at four areasEnvironmental ain leadingTeam factorsEnvironmentalThis refers to the normal factors which hold a team together eg contracts and scholarships. Other factors include age and geographic closeness. Having team members of the same age living in the same area increases the opportunities for interaction and communication between the group. The size of the group will also affect cohesion because of the manufacturing of cliques. littler groups always tend to be more cohesive than larger groups.PersonalThis is in relation to each person within the group there are major differences between each individual in the group. Carron has cut off personal factors into 3 separate groupsDemographic attributes eg genderCognitions and motives eg anxiety demeanor eg ability to fol woeful rules attractershipThis refers to the drawing cards and deportment. The role of loss attractions is important in team cohesion in offering communication towards team goals. Another factor is the relationship between the team and the coach as a good relationship will ensure a more cohesive group.TeamThis in cludes desire for group success, group roles, group sit and team stability. Carron believed that the longer a team have together and also have a desire for success show higher levels of cohesion. shared experiences of success or failure are also essential in developing cohesion within the group, as it brings the team closer together. sit of CohesionCohesion and performance, what comes first?There have been numerous studies exhibit that there is a relationship between team cohesiveness and success. The unwrap the team the more cohesive the team. What interrogation has not shown whether or not these prosperous teams performed well because of the cohesiveness of the team or is the team cohesive because they have shared the experiences of winning. Both of these explanations may be correct. S later(prenominal) and Sewell (1994) heedful team cohesion in sixty university level hockey players representing common chord male and three female teams, early, midway and at the end of the season. This research has shown that early success resulted in late cohesion and early success resulted in late success. Slater and Sewell (1994) reason out that while early success connect to later cohesiveness, the stronger relationship was between early cohesiveness and later success. They proposed that cohesiveness and success were mutually dependant.High cohesiveness Greater success Higher cohesivenessLow cohesiveness Less success rase cohesivenessAs you can see from the above model, the cohesiveness of a team early on in the season affects the success of the team which in turn affects the cohesiveness of the team later in the season. This study shows why one of the main priorities of a coach is to develop a highly cohesive team.Team cohesion is shown to be related to a teams success on the field. Although many studies have found that a teams cohesion was related to is bombersequent performance, many other studies found that team cohesion had very little to do with how succ essful the team became. Success is related to the symbol of cohesion that exists within the team. More specifically, if your team has a high level of task cohesion, meaning that they play well together and lodge united in the pursuit of the teams goals, then they are more probable to enjoy success. On the other hand, having a high amount of social cohesion, meaning that the team members are good friends and that they enjoy each others company, elbow room very little in the way of predicting your teams performance. It has even been found that teams who are high in social cohesion play worse as a team. The key is not necessarily that your team members like each other, but that they are united in their efforts to achieve the team goals set forth at the beginning of the season.Higher levels of team (task) cohesion see to be related to team success as the season progresses, and as the team becomes more successful, the degree of team cohesion appears to increase as well. Some might s ay the relationship between team cohesion and team success is a circular system. As team cohesion improves, so does the teams performance, and as the teams performance improves, it becomes more and more cohesive.It also appears that the consociate between a teams performance and its subsequent cohesion is stronger than the link between the teams initial cohesion and their performance early on in the season.The answer, consort to previous studies in sport psychology, to the question whether performance or cohesion comes first, is both.http//www.baseballnews.com/features/teamchemistry.htmBuilding an effective team and developing cohesivenessTeam cohesion is shown to be one of the most important factors in a successful team therefore is of vital importance that the coach encourages team cohesion, especially in societies such as Britain and the USA where people can be very self centred and dont care about the team. Coaches therefore figure out strategies to bring the team together, th is is known as team building. Carron et al. (1997) came up with the pursuit steps for team building.Each player should be acquainted with the responsibilities of the other team members.As coach, learn something personal about each team member and use it to gain cooperation.Gain pride in the sub teams within larger teams e.g. the defenceInvolve players in end devising to make them feel the team belongs to them.Set the team goals and celebrate when they are attained.Teach each team member their responsibilities and convince them of their individual importance. chuck up the sponge team members to have disagreements.Prevent the formation of cliques within the team, by openhanded every member opportunities to perform and avoiding scapegoating.Use routines in practice designed to teach team members how dependant they are on each other. cozy up the positive aspects of play, even when the team is on a losing streak.Leadership in sportDefinition leading can be defined as the behavioural process of influencing individuals and groups towards set goals.(Barrow, 1997)Trait possible action of leading wee research on leadership was based on the psychological centralize of the day, which was of people having inherited characteristics or traits. Attention was therefrom put on discovering these traits, often by studying successful leaders, but with the underlying effrontery that if other people could also be found with these traits, then they, too, could also become big leaders.In the 1920s researchers tried to show that characteristics were common to all leaders therefore to be a good leader you had to have these qualities inbuilt when you are born. This means that a person who is a good leader in one situation is a good leader in any situation.McCall and Lombardo (1983) researched both success and failure determine four primary traits by which leaders could succeed or jumpstartEmotional stability and composure Calm, confident and predictable, oddly when under st ress.Admitting erroneous belief Owning up to mistakes, preferably than putting energy into covering up.Good interpersonal skills Sble to communicate and persuade others without resort to negative or coercive tactics. bright breadth Able to under support a wide range of areas, rather than having a narrow (and narrow-minded) area of expertise.McCall and Lombardo (1983)Stogdill (1974) identified the following traits and skills as scathing to leaders.SkillsAdaptable to situationsAlert to social surroundAmbitious and achievement-orientatedAssertive accommodativeDecisiveDependableDominant (desire to influence others)Energetic (high activity level) indomitableSelf-confidentTolerant of stressWilling to assume responsibility happy (intelligent)Conceptually skilledCreativeDiplomatic and tactfulFluent in speakingKnowledgeable about group taskOrganised (administrative ability) glib-tonguedSocially skilledKirkpatrick and Locke (1991) identified eight characteristics which are associated with successful leadership. They are drive, honesty, motivation to lead, self-confidence, intelligence, expertise in the purpose of the group, creativity and flexibility. Kirkpatrick and Locke then concluded that inspirational leaders do not learn to be great men or women by being intellectual geniuses or omniscient prophets but they do need to have the right gouge and this stuff isnt equally present in all peopleKirkpatrick and Locke (1991)Behavioural theoryThis theory states that anybody can be a good leader by learning the behaviour of an effective leader therefore this theory says that the qualities of a good leader can be learned and developed through training and experience, contradictory to the trait theory this one is saying that good leaders are made and not born.As early researchers ran out of information in their research in personal traits of leaders, they turned to what leaders did, how they behaved and especially towards their followers. They moved from leaders to leaders hip and this became the dominant way of come up leadership in the 1950s and early 1960s. Different patterns of behaviour were sort together and labelled as drifts. A variety of schemes appeared, designed to get wind and develop peoples air of working. Despite different names for these schemes, the basic ideas were very similar. The four main modal values that appear are disquiet for task. Here leaders put emphasis on the achievement of concrete objectives (achievement of goals). They look for high levels of productivity, and ways to organize people and activities in order to meet those objectives. Concern for people. In this style, leaders look upon their followers as people and can identify their needs, interests, problems, development and so on and be able to work around these to get the best out of them. They are not only when units of production or means to an end. Directive leadership. This style is characterized by leaders making decisions for others and expecting follo wers to follow instructions, such as a team captain on the pitch giving instructions to the rest of the players on the field. Participative leadership. Here leaders try to share decision-making with the rest of the players but when the need arises that a decision has to be made quickly then his tutelage turns back to directive leadership.Many of the early researchers that looked to participative and people-centred leadership argued that it brought about greater satisfaction amongst followers. However, as Sadler (1997) reports, when researchers really got to work on this it didnt seem to stand up. There were lots of differences and inconsistencies between studies. It was difficult to say style of leadership was significant in enabling one group to work reveal than another. The main problem may have been one shared with those who looked for traits. The researchers did not look properly at the context or setting which the style was used in. Is it possible that the same style would w ork as well in a group of friends? The styles that leaders can adopt are far more affected by those they are working with, and the environment they are working within, than had been originally thought.Interactional plan of attackThe synergistic get on looks at the interaction between the person and the situation rather than the disposition of the leader. This approach stresses the following pointsEffective leaders cant be predicted exclusively on personality.Effective leadership fits specific situations, as some leaders function better in certain circumstances than others.Leadership style needs to change to suit the situationA good example of the way this theory works is relationship orientated leaders develop interpersonal relationships, provide god communication and ensure everyone is feeling good within the group. However, task orientated leaders are concerned with getting the work done and meeting objectives.Stafford Browne et el. (2003)Critics argued that the continued fo cus on the leader, rather than the situation where leadership takes place, provided a limited view of leadership. This is why an interactional approach to leadership was developed. This took into account the leader, the situation at the time, the grapheme of people who are being led and the interaction between them. This interactional approach is examined in the work of both Fiedler and Chelladurai.Fred E. Fiedlers contingency theory says that there is no best way for managers to lead. Situations will create different leadership style requirements for a manager. The solution to a managerial situation is dependent on the factors that are imposed on the situation. E.g. a coach may have to act on a situation such as player getting injured. He/she must get the suitable replacement. This is not planned it is an unexpected situation that has arisen and must be dealt with.(Woods 2001)Fiedlers Contingency modelFiedlers model assumes that group performance depends onLeadership style, descr ibed in terms of task motivation and relationship motivation.Situational favourableness, determined by three factors1. Leader-member relations Degree to which a leader is accepted and supported by the group members.2. Task structure Extent to which the task is structured and defined, with square away goals and procedures.3. Position power The ability of a leader to control subordinates through reward and punishment.High levels of these three factors give the most favourable situation, low levels, the least favourable. Relationship-motivated leaders are most effective in passably favourable situations. Task-motivated leaders are most effective at either end of the scale.Fiedler suggests that it may be easier for leaders to change their situation to achieve effectiveness, rather than change their leadership style.A good example of this approach was with Brian Mc Eniff when he won the 1992 All Ireland final with Donegal but has failed to do so since with rows in the camp between m entors and players. The leader was powerful but the relationship wasnt warm therefore pressure took its toll and he had to resign. three-dimensional model of sport leadershipIn 1978 Chelladurai proposed a multidimensional model of leadership developed on the basis of leadership theories and their effectiveness. Performance outcomes and satisfaction could be achieved by effective leader behaviours. This means that if things arent going particularly well the leader must stand and be counted and motivate his players to succeed. In this case the coach has to be able to change his leadership style to suit the situation.This model says that if a leader behaves appropriately for the particular situation and these behaviours match the preferences of the group then they will achieve their goals.The modelAntecedents Leader behaviour Consequences4. required behaviour1. situational characteristics7. performance satisfaction5. actual behaviour2. leader characteristics6. preferred behaviour3. mem ber characteristicsSituational characteristicsThe characteristics of the situation the group is in such as size, type of sport or winning or losing,Leader characteristicsThe personal qualities of the leader such as confidence, intelligence, assertiveness and self-motivation. ingredient characteristicsThe different personalities of different types of athletes such as age, gender, ability and experience.Required behaviourThe type of characteristics required from a leader in a particular situation. For example if a team is losing with 5mins to go, is it better for the leader to make the decision himself or discuss it with the group?Actual behaviourThis is the behaviour the leader actually displaysPreferred behaviourThe preferred leadership of the team depending on the situation.Performance satisfactionThis is the extent to which the team is satisfied with the performance of the group under this leader.A good example of this approach was with Brian Kerr when he was in charge of the Iris h soccer team. He had a mix of different approaches between autocratic and democratic. Normally he was democratic with his more elder players making decisions and enforcing leadership. When things werent going to plan though he stepped in as the autocratic leader to set things right again.Leadership stylesThere are a number of different leadership styles that I will look at, some more successful than others. The different types of leader are tyrannous authoritarianDemocratic leadershipLaissez faireAutocratic authoritarianThis type of leader dictates to the group, he doesnt ask for advice, comments or ideas from the group. He is the one who makes all of the decisions. This leadership style has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are that the members of the group can be directed towards purpose-made actions even when stressed and exhausted. The disadvantage is that wise group members do not have the chance to input useful information into the group and thus they may find it difficult to motivate themselves.Democratic leadershipThis type of leadership encourages the involvement of the whole group as individuals and as a group. Participants are encouraged to give feedback, ideas and to help make decisions. If the group leader were to be absent then the group would be efficient teeming to continue what they were doing on their own. The bad side of this style is that it can cause trouble when decisions need to be made quickly in an emergency. This type of leadership is usually the most successful.Laissez faireThis style of leadership encourages group independence in the sense that the group makes their own decisions, the leader only gets multiform when the group gets into difficulties or in cases of emergency. Lewin (1939) found that this type of group tended to become more aggressive with each other when things went wrong. Leaders in this type of group often fail to motivate the members of the group and fail to deal with a crisis.