Archives

create an entry — No Comments
23
Feb 22

Blog #4 Team Cohesion

Throughout high school, I participated in Relay for life, a nonprofit, charity organization. I was a part of the Relay for Life committee that’s mission was to raise money to fund cancer research and reach the $50,000 goal. To create a successful all-day and night event, the group needed to plan fundraisers, organize teams, and plan ceremonies. These included the opening, fight back, survivor and caregiver, and luminaria ceremonies.

The group had nearly one-hundred members which consisted of teachers, students, and cancer survivors. As a whole, we were highly united as a social group. We looked forward to our daily interactions and after school get-togethers. However, we were not organized with respect to reaching our performance goals. According to Gruman et al. (2017), we were high on social cohesion and low on task cohesion (p.134). To solve this issue, we split into subgroups that were assigned to completing specific tasks. For example, one subgroup was responsible for raising fundraisers and collecting donations. We combined our individual skills and abilities to create balance in our group.

Each subgroup had a leader that made sure each member was doing their best and fulfilling their assigned task roles. My task role was to create social media campaigns, while another individual worked on collecting data. Although the leader was the one in charge of our group, the members were also involved in making decisions. This is called democratic leadership. This method of leadership is related to higher task cohesion. In turn, task cohesion correlates with team confidence and performance (Gruman et al., 2017, p.136-137).

Although the event was successful, the group experienced some difficulty regarding intrateam norms in the beginning. This ultimately disrupted the cohesion of the group and negatively affected the group’s synergy. During group discussions, several members would interrupt while the leader was speaking, have separate conversations, not maintain eye contact, go on their cellphones, and criticize their ideas. These nonconformities caused our group to experience process losses because we could not effectively and respectively interact with one another to discuss and coordinate events.

This caused us to be behind on schedule. Therefore, it was essential that the leader schedule a meeting to handle the conflict among members and find solutions. The leader communicated her feelings, expectations, and reminded us of our goal. She asked us for our feedback, and we gave suggestions for optimizing communication. In the example provided by Eccles and Tenenbaum, two strategies for optimizing communication among teams are developing a shared language and cross-training (Gruman et al., 2017, p.146). A few days after the meeting, there was a noticeable difference in the way the groups functioned. We were able to collaborate and function effectively, ultimately creating the optimal group experience and achieving our shared goal.

 

Reference

Gruman, J.A., Schneider, F.W., & Coutts, L.A. (2017). Applied Social Psychology:

     Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Uncategorized — No Comments
06
Oct 21

Teamwork Makes the Dream Work… right?

When I was a high school freshman, my high school’s band program was known as one of the best programs in the city, if not the state. Not only did it perform incredibly well in state competitions, but it was also a great experience being a part of the band. Students from different sections got along great with one another, and for many of us, our sections felt like family. However, in the years that followed, I noticed that the band felt less cohesive than when I first joined. Students still viewed their own sections as a kind of “family”, but there were fewer interactions between different sections. Also, our performance at competitions slipped downwards, eventually to the point where we usually got eliminated out of finals. What happened? Some of these changes may have resulted from outside factors, like changes in the band directors and students. Nevertheless, a part of me wondered whether the drop in the band’s cohesion caused the drop in the performance. Would we have done better if the band was more unified?

The concept that a team’s cohesion affects their performance would seem to make sense logically. When cohesion is high, team members get along better with one another and are on the same page regarding their shared objectives. This line of reasoning would be consistent with research on sports teams discussed by Gruman, Schneider, & Coutts (2017), which show that cohesion strongly relates to individual performance, individual efforts, and team performance (pg. 137). Team members are more likely to exert more effort when the team gets along well, and they can coordinate well with one another when they are all on the same page. It is tempting to interpret these findings to mean that group cohesion greatly improves how well they get a task done. As they say, teamwork makes the dream work… right?

Unfortunately, improving team performance may not be as simple as getting people to get along. It is important to remember that correlations do not necessarily indicate that causation goes one way or the other. Although it may seem to make more sense for group cohesion to cause performance, it is possible that performance also causes group cohesion. Evidence for this possibility comes from Grieve, Whelan, & Meyers (2000), who found that cohesion has far less impact on performance than performance has on cohesion. A shared victory can be a great experience for people to bond over, while a defeat can leave people feeling bitter and distancing themselves from the team. Further research discussed by Gruman et al. (2017) regarding the cohesion-performance relationship found that cohesion can predict performance just as well as performance can predict cohesion. Regardless of which one causes the other more, the research shows that the relationship between team cohesion and team performance can go both ways, with both of them influencing each other.

So was it the drop in cohesion that doomed my band’s performances? While research shows a strong link between a team’s cohesion and performance, it also suggests the causality is bidirectional. My band’s performance may have suffered from a decrease in cohesion, but that drop in performance may have also caused cohesion to suffer as well. Thinking back, this would make sense, as I recall some of my band friends emotionally distancing themselves from the band program after we failed to make finals. The process may have repeated multiple times over my high school years, with decreased band cohesion leading to worse performances, and failures at state competitions leading to the band further falling apart. Perhaps my band would not have drifted apart as much if we had done well at performances. The band may have bonded better after a successful performance, which could boost future performances as well. It is true, on some level, that teamwork makes the dream work. However, based on the research, I would also argue that when the dream works, the team works.

 

References

Grieve, F. G., Whelan, J. P., & Meyers, A. W. (2000). An Experimental Examination of the Cohesion-Performance Relationship in an Interactive Team Sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 12(2), 219-235. doi:10.1080/10413200008404224

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Uncategorized — No Comments
04
Mar 21

Cohesion in Small Military Units

Group cohesion is one of the most important attributes inherent in successful small unit (i.e. team) military operations, at least in my own experience. When I reference small unit, imagine a four to ten soldier team (the latter referred to as a squad, or up to a ~30-person platoon/~120-person company) maneuvering harmoniously through a field. Or kicking in an insurgent’s door, and flowing room to room through the dark interior of a hostile house until they meet their target. If applied social psychology has taught us anything about organizational and sports teams it is that cohesion has a strong positive correlation with performance, especially task cohesion (Gruman, Schneider, and Coutts, 2017, p 181). If group and task cohesion is important when sales numbers or playoff births are on the line, imagine how important unity and working together proficiently is when it is the lives of you and your team members on the line.

Military personnel rosters are constantly changing, whereby familiar faces are promoted or transferred to other units or duty stations, or exit the military service altogether, and their absences filled by young privates or lieutenants fresh out of their initial training or new faces in general. As well, the branches of the United States military, like the nation it serves, is a diverse melting pot consisting of individuals from all walks of life. The men and women one conducts training with for up to a year or more might not all be the same that end up going off to war with them. Therefore, social cohesion can be a slow roll, and ebb and flow, as bonds are made, and tempers boil over, much as they can with any team. Much to the last point is the fact that the racial make-up of the United States Armed Forces is well representative of the American population. In my experience, whites predominantly makeup most of a unit, followed closely by black and Latino, and thereafter by a smaller percentage of races and ethnicities that do not fall into any of those constructions. Despite such background and racial differences, Widmeyer, Silva, and Hardy (1992) found that athletes reported “social and racial similarities to be of minimal importance toward the task and social cohesion of their team” (Gruman et al, 2017, p. 185). I have found the same to be true in my experience, of course, and if anything, it is diversity that fosters greater depth of experience and helps to avoid group think. Moreover, the bonds that are formed through shared misery and hardship that can be the crucible of training, and war, help to strengthen the social and racial cohesion of smaller military units.

Despite the bonds infighting still does occur within even the tightest knit of military units. It may even occur because of how close the groups are, both in shared space, duration, frequency, and duration (and often because of too much testosterone and bravado (in all male units); and sometimes too much alcohol). Nonetheless, task cohesion can prevail despite upward and downward trends in group social cohesion. Task cohesion can remain high, in a well drilled and trained group, because roles are clearly defined, and role clarity amongst members, where the expectations of individuals and groups is reinforced and rehearsed. When role performance is lacking, or even when carried out in flawless precision as planned, military units stimulate performance growth and reinforcement (whether positive or negative/reward or punishment) through routine feedback.

Few organizations or teams find success without effective communication. Imagine how unlikely it would be for the five best basketball players to play together if they were not able to call for passes, or signal for a pick and roll. Or between a baseball pitcher and catcher to know what the next pitch will be; or for the runner on first to know that his third base coach wants him to steal second. Just the same, effective communication within and between small or larger sized military units is key to their “exchange of resources,” as Roloff (1981) defines it (Gruman et al., 2017, 197) to enhance coordination and ensure comprehension. I like to think that the military has mastered nonverbal communication, the best that can be done without delving into actual sign language anyway, such that I can lead a small group through many different combat scenarios with only the use of hand and arm signals and no verbal communication at all. While the universality and proliferative use of hand and arm signaling is effective toward task cohesion in tactical situations, it is the congratulatory fist bump in triumph, the pat on the back for a job well done, or the hugging embrace of another member in the worst of situations that highlights the effectiveness of nonverbal communication toward social cohesion, and social cohesion in general, within the small units and the profession of arms.

Reference

Gruman, J., Schneider, F., and Coutts, L. (Eds.) (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1-4833-6973-. pp. 181, 185, 197

Uncategorized — No Comments
21
Feb 18

Team Cohesion Leads to Success

A team is a small group of people with a common goal, all of whom have a skill to offer on the quest to obtain the goal (Nelson, 2018).  Teams are proving vital to organization success for several reasons.  As society progresses and modernizes, the work that organizations perform is also progressing, and becoming more in-depth and complicated (Nelson, 2018).  As a result, more individuals are needed to complete tasks that work together to achieve a common goal.  Furthermore, as organizations expand, progress, and offer specialized products or output, workers with more specialized skills are also needed (Nelson, 2018).

As you can tell, teams are the pieces that really make the wheel go round.  But what if some pieces were damaged?  What if some pieces didn’t quite fit?  The wheel might not go round, or if it did, it might not move as efficiently as it could.  For this reason, team cohesion is greatly important.

Cohesion can be described through four unique elements.  First, cohesion possesses multidimensionality, and consists of various factors that help to forge the bond in the team (Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts, 2012).  Cohesion is also notably dynamic, and is witnessed to have a special element to it (Schneider et al., 2012).  Affectivity within cohesion is also important to recognize, as members of the team have their own feelings about the team and the common goal (Schneider et al., 2012).  Finally, cohesion is instrumental in the sense that just because a team member might not agree on all accounts with another team member, their common goal is still the same (Schneider et al., 2012).

Contributing to cohesion is accomplished through both individual and social factors.  One’s personal attitude and performance is important to the team performance, and these factors can influence one another (Schneider et al., 2012).  For example, imagine the team captain of the hockey team, charged with motivating his fellow teammates, as well as directing and guiding a lot of the action on the ice, shows up to practice and games always in a bad mood, and never putting in his best effort.  His performance, and lack of effort, can spill off onto the teammates as well.  Under the same scenario, the teammates are not affected by their captain’s poor attitude lately, but are instead picking up his slack.  This in turn motivates the captain to put in more effort for his team.

On the topic of team and cohesion, and using this same scenario described above, the team epitomizes cohesion when they do indeed pick up the slack for another teammate, and still drive on to achieve their common goal.  Roles are also relevant within a team.  In fact, research has suggested the importance of role clarity, acceptance, and performance on cohesion (Schneider et al., 2012).  When every member of the team knows their job, accepts it, and performs their job well, cohesion is better achieved.

Within an organization, teams are often formulated to achieve various goals  throughout, which also later may even help to further larger goals, and those may help further even larger goals, and so on.  Organizational goals can be plenty, although are usually concise.  When a team is put in place to accomplish a task, it makes sense that a team that works well together would be the most effective.  It is important to note that cohesion and success can still be acquire even when team members are not fully alike, or do not fully see eye to eye.  As the saying goes, “it takes all kinds to make the world go round.”  It also takes all kinds to make the team wheel go round.

 

Nelson, Anthony, PhD. (2018).  Applied Social Psychology Course Commentary.  Presented on PSYCH 424 Course Content site lecture at The Pennsylvania State University.

Schneider, Frank W., Gruman, Jamie A., & Coutts, Larry M. (2012).  Applied Social Psychology:  Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems.  Second Edition.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage.

Uncategorized — No Comments
13
Oct 14

A Team in Need

Sisters-arguing cropped

I am a volleyball coach for a club team on the central coast of California. The season is about to start and I am always looking for ways to improve my coaching. As I read the chapters on teams and organizations I realized that are solutions to some problems I have had with teams in the past. One such problem is cohesion. Cohesion is defined as the tendency for a group to stick together (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012, pg 116). There have been two types of cohesion identified, task and social cohesion (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012, pg 117). Task cohesion is the ability for a group to want to reach a goal and social cohesion is friendships (Schneider, Gruman & Coutts, 2012, pg 116).
It has been my experience that not all high-school aged girls get along. When those girls end up on the same sports teams, bad things can happen, such as very low social cohesion. One thing I see a lot of when this happens is relational aggression. Relational aggression includes social exclusion, friendship withdrawal threats (e.g., “I won’t be your friend unless…”), giving the silent treatment and spreading malicious secrets, lies or gossip (Ostrov, 2013). As one can imagine, this can be particularly harmful to the team’s social cohesion. I was also not very knowledgeable about how to fix these problems until recently.
From the reading, I know understand that the antecedents of cohesion must be present in order create unity. These include role clarity, role acceptance, and role performance. Role clarity is the extent ones role is clearly defined (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012, pg 119). Role acceptance is the degree to which the person agrees to comply with their role (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012, pg 119). While role performance is how well the person actually fulfills their role (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012, pg 119). These increase task unity and social cohesion (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012, pg 119) and were something I have not always done. With this in mind, I tried to make my team better.
So now, at the beginning of each week I sit down with each of the girls and have a conversation. I ask them questions about their role to make sure they understand what it is they are supposed to do (role clarity). We then move on to role acceptance. I ask them if they accept the role I have given them. We talk about how happy the girl is with their role. If they are not happy, I give them a list of things they need to do in order to gain the role they want. For example, if a girl wants to be hitter and her current role is defensive in nature, I could tell her she needs to perfect her hitting approach before she gains the role she wants. Next, we would move on to role performance. This is a discussion about why each girl is (or is not) playing. If they are not playing, I give them the statistics they need to improve on to play. Last, I ask the girls if they need to speak to me about any of the other girls. I let them know that any social problems cannot affect the team and must be dealt with through me. Any violation of this policy will result in disciplinary action.
I, as the coach, also set the social norms for the team. My job is to coach and critique, the player’s jobs are to be positive no matter what, especially to eachother. I strictly uphold these rules and reinforce them daily. These weekly talks have curtailed the major problems with social cohesion.
I was a little surprised how well they have worked, although I shouldn’t be. These things have been researched and my opinion or intuition is secondary. It makes me excited to try and incorporate more research into my coaching. I want to continue to use science to solve problems. This is being an applied social psychologist. I eagerly read sports psychology articles and social psychology texts.

References

Ostrov, J. (2013). The development of relational aggression. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from:
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/07-08/relational-aggression.aspx

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Skip to toolbar