Which of the following team characteristics has the most direct impact on cohesion?

Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support . We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Monthly Plan

• Access everything in the JPASS collection
• Read the full-text of every article
• Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep

Yearly Plan

• Access everything in the JPASS collection
• Read the full-text of every article
• Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep

Log in through your institution

Purchase a PDF

Purchase this article for $14.00 USD.

How does it work?

1. Select the purchase option.
2. Check out using a credit card or bank account with PayPal .
3. Read your article online and download the PDF from your email or your account.

journal article

MIS Quarterly

Vol. 25, No. 3 (Sep., 2001)

, pp. 371-390 (20 pages)

Published By: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota

https://doi.org/10.2307/3250922

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3250922

Read and download

Log in through your school or library

Alternate access options

For independent researchers

Read Online

Read 100 articles/month free

Subscribe to JPASS

Unlimited reading + 10 downloads

Purchase article

$14.00 - Download now and later

Abstract

Organizations deploy advanced communication media such as audio and videoconferencing to enhance and extend group communication interactions. However, established groups (i.e., groups with a history of working together) can view and use the same technology differently from groups without any past experiences of working together. This study examines the relative influences of media condition and group cohesion on social presence, task participation, and group consensus. Results from a controlled laboratory experiment with 45 triads of college students working on a decision-making task showed that media condition (audio conferencing vs. desktop video-conferencing) has significantly smaller influences on social presence and task participation than group cohesion in established groups. The study found that influence of group cohesion over social presence is additive, rather than substitutive, to that of media condition. The study also established that task participation played a more important role than social presence in determining the degree of consensus among group members in computer-mediated communication environments.

Journal Information

The editorial objective of the MIS Quarterly is the enhancement and communication of knowledge concerning the development of IT-based services, the management of IT resources, and the use, impact, and economics of IT with managerial, organizational, and societal implications. Professional issues affecting the IS field as a whole are also in the purview of the journal.

Publisher Information

Established in 1968, the University of Minnesota Management Information Systems Research Center promotes research in MIS topics by bridging the gap between the corporate and academic MIS worlds through the events in the MISRC Associates Program.

In the continual quest for better coaching practices, advocates of this profession have sought to identify key factors that contribute to the success of any sporting endeavor, and team cohesion is undeniably linked to that success (Carron, Bray, & Eys, 2002; Vincer & Loughead, 2010).  Regardless of whether the sport one coaches are individual or team-based, perceptions of team cohesion are strongly related to athlete performance (Turman, 2003).

To most coaches, this might seem intuitive, but this topic is worthy of further exploration.  Therefore, the purpose of this article is to describe team cohesion in sports and the factors that affect it while ultimately providing coaches with strategies for achieving team cohesion.

Cohesion Defined
Cohesion has several definitions, but Bollen and Hoyle (1990) provide the following description in relation to its connection to group performance: “an individual’s sense of belonging to a particular group and his or her feelings of morale associated with membership in groups” (p. 482). Generally, if athletes feel a strong and positive connection with their teammates and coaches then cohesion is high. So in essence, cohesion is a feeling that athletes have about being on a team. A prominent psychotherapist, Yalom (1995), described group cohesion as the attractiveness of the group to its members. In order for athletes to be attracted to a team, it must offer something that they need. Most coaches probably assume that the opportunity to compete is enough to meet that need but in reality it is far more complex. Indeed, there are two main types of cohesion of which coaches should be aware.

Types of Cohesion
The first category has to do with the individual aspects of a team or, more specifically, the task dimension (Carron, 1982). In essence, task cohesion is all about what athletes do. Coaches who use teaching approaches that are more technique-oriented are likely to develop high task cohesion because the focus is on the actual skill requirements of the sport. While task cohesion is related to what athletes do, social cohesion centers more on who athletes are. Perhaps not surprisingly, many athletes “wish their coaches were better facilitators of social cohesion” (Shields et al., 1997, p. 208).  Winning is a basic objective of any sport and it is every coach’s job to put their team in the best position to win. Coaches can increase the likelihood of winning by fostering overall team cohesion (Carron et al., 2002). However, it is important to note that individual sports teams (e.g. track & field) can win without a high level of social cohesion. Athletes do not always have to personally like their teammates, or even their coach, as long as they can get the job done and maintain a high level of task cohesion within their group. In reality, though, coaches need to recognize that their athletes are individuals outside of their sport, and getting to know the person behind the performer will enable coaches to create an environment with higher overall cohesion and better performance.

Factors that affect Cohesion
Many factors affect the cohesion that will develop on a team. Such factors include the environment (e.g. social and physical), personal factors (e.g. personality), team factors (e.g. norms), and leadership factors (e.g. styles; Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985). Although each variable plays an essential role, the leadership factors may be the most important (Vincer & Loughead, 2010). This distinction is vital for coaches to know as they have a significant influence on how well team cohesion develops. In fact, a practitioner’s efforts to foster cohesion can be viewed as a performance in its own right (Gould et al., 2002). Athletes instinctively model their coach’s behavior and an awareness of this can help coaches affect team cohesion in a positive way.

Suggestions for Coaches
The coach plays an integral role in any athlete’s experience and this is especially true for team cohesion. Over the course of my career, I have developed a list of activities aimed at fostering this important aspect of team culture. These recommendations are things that I have used as a coach myself, but more recently as a sport psychology consultant who works with coaches.

Suggestions for Coaching Style
An intuitive idea that has been shown to have an effect on team cohesion is the coach’s general attitude toward the entire team (Turman, 2003). As many coaches are aware, the coach-athlete relationship is much like a parent-child relationship in that athletes will model the behavior of their coach. If coaches want athletes to arrive at practice with a positive attitude then they better well show some enthusiasm themselves. Simply put, enthusiasm is contagious and it promotes team cohesion, which increases a team’s chances of success.

Suggestions for Team Activities
According to athletes, the more time the whole team spends together, the more cohesion is felt amongst teammates (Turman, 2003). One could argue that athletes already spend a significant amount of time together and it would be ‘going overboard’ to require them to give more of their time outside of practice.  However, coaches can use several creative approaches to supplement practice times with outside gatherings. In fact, many coaches already have their athletes lift weights together, eat team dinners before competitions, or volunteer at local charity organizations to promote cohesion. Even a simple team meeting before practices can go a long way in cultivating a team’s sense of bonding.

Perhaps a less obvious suggestion pertains to the use of athlete leaders (e.g. team captains) to influence team cohesion. As a former team captain for many sports teams, I cannot recall a time when any of my coaches informed me of what it actually meant to be a team captain. Generally, team captains are upperclassmen who understand the team culture and are naturally well-respected by younger teammates. Coaches should educate team captains on their role and how to best use it to foster greater cohesion.  However, it should be noted that team captains who act too authoritatively toward teammates can actually detract from the group’s cohesion (Vincer & Loughead, 2010). As such, the function of athlete leaders should primarily consist of social support behaviors that encourage team bonding.

Suggestions for the Coach-Athlete Relationship
Although athletes are not machines, coaches often get caught up in the technical parts of the sport and neglect the important psychosocial aspects. If an athlete is not performing well, coaches instinctively look at the training approach and see if something can be altered so the athletes respond better. Or, alternatively, one could assume that the training is fine, and the athlete just does not have the mental toughness to compete at a high level. While these assumptions may be valid in some situations, a third alternative should be considered.  What is going on in the athlete’s interpersonal life? How are they being accepted on the team? How do they perceive the coach?  We, as humans, have an inherent ‘need to belong.’  Whether that need is actually met in sports is directly related to a team’s cohesion. But the only way coaches can know if that need is NOT being met for a particular athlete, is to interact with them on an interpersonal level.

As a coach, I firmly believe that the best way to achieve high cohesion is through a concerted effort to understand athletes on a deeper level.  This goal can be achieved by having regularly scheduled individual meetings as well as whole team meetings.  Athletes need to be given the opportunity to be heard and coaches should be willing to listen.  If coaches make efforts to ensure that athletes are understood and socially connected to both coaches and teammates, teams will achieve a level of cohesion that not only promotes winning, but goes beyond it.

Conclusion
From both a practical and research perspective, team cohesion is important for success (Carron et al., 2002). The use of team-building exercises not only promotes positive team chemistry, but it also influences the effectiveness of coaches in a constructive manner (Gould et al., 2002). Knowing that coaches can drastically affect cohesion, they can seek to achieve it in both task and social dimensions, acknowledging that the psychosocial arena is a field in which many can improve. Athletes look to coaches for guidance and it is the leader’s responsibility to actively encourage team-bonding and empower team captains to cultivate it on yet another level.  Although many strategies exist on how to develop team cohesion the most important point is that coaches must consciously strive for it, and communicating the importance of it to athletes, both verbally and non-verbally, is essential to achieving it. If coaches build strong relationships with the individuals under their tutelage and encourage them to build relationships with each other, team cohesion will undoubtedly improve, and so will overall performances.

References
Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social forces, 69(2), 479-504.

Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4(2), 123-138.

Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M. A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in sport. Journal of sports sciences, 20(2), 119-126.

Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of sport psychology, 7(3), 244-266.

Gould, D., Guinan, D., Greenleaf, C., & Chung, Y. (2002). A survey of US Olympic coaches: Variables perceived to have influenced athlete performances and coach effectiveness. The Sport Psychologist, 16(3), 229-250.

Halbrook, M., Blom, L. C., Hurley, K., Bell, R. J., & Holden, J. E. (2012). Relationships among motivation, gender, and cohesion in a sample of collegiate athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 35(1), 61-77.

Light Shields, D. L., Gardner, D. E., Light Bredemeier, B. J., & Bostro, A. (1997). The relationship between leadership behaviors and group cohesion in team sports. the Journal of Psychology, 131(2), 196-210.

Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Sideridis, G. (2008). The motivating role of positive feedback in sport and physical education: Evidence for a motivational model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30(2), 240.

Senécal, J., Loughead, T. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2008). A season-long team-building intervention: Examining the effect of team goal setting on cohesion. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30(2), 186.

Turman, P. D. (2003). Coaches and cohesion: The impact of coaching techniques on team cohesion in the small group sport setting. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 26(1), 86-104.

Vincer, D., & Loughead, T. M. (2010). The relationship among athlete leadership behaviors and cohesion in team sports. Sport Psychologist, 24(4), 448.

Yalom, I. D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. Basic Books.

Which of the following can influence cohesiveness within a group or team?

Which of the following factors lead to increased team cohesion among team members?

Which aspect of team cohesion is a greater predictor of performance outcomes?

Which aspect of team cohesion is most likely to be predictive of team performance?