Team Cohesion

The relationships between team cohesion and performance relationship have been investigated in two ways:

• influence of cohesion on performance;
• influence of performance success on cohesion.

Research on the influence of cohesion on performance has suggested that high cohesive basketball teams win significantly more games than low cohesive (Martens & Peterson, 1971. This has been supported by other researchers (Bird, 1977; Nixon, 1976; Widmeyer & Martens, 1978). Differently, Melnick and Chemers (1974) found no relationship between preseason cohesion and performance outcome whereas significant negative relationships were also reported by others (Landers & Lueschen ,1974; Lenk, 1966). However, those results are better explained by the pattern that cohesion – performance relationships are reported for interactive tasks (ball games) and negative relationships for group tasks that require minimal interaction among members (individual sports).

Studies examining the influence of team success on cohesion have consistently shown a strong positive relationship (Landers & Crum, 1971; Nixon, 1976; Peterson & Martens, 1972).

Principles of building team cohesion

Coaches can facilitate the development of social cohesion by:

• Open communication between themselves and team members;
• Seeking input when making decisions;
• Addressing conflict when it arises;
• Developing pride and a collective identity by setting realistic goals;
• Developing common expectations and norms (e.g., being on time, supporting team members).
• Rewarding personal contributions;
• Stressing the unique role of each team member;
• Organizing regular team meetings at which everyone can vent their emotions, express dissatisfaction and resolve conflict;
• Discussing the positive aspects of a performance before the negatives;
• Reinforcing identity of the team by training in a common uniform;
• Facilitating social interactions outside of the training environment; Avoid excess team substitutions;
• Avoiding clique formation by randomly assigning individuals to groups.  

References:

Bird, A.M. (1977). Development of a model for predicting team performance. Research Quarterly, 48, 24 – 32.

Landers, D.M., & Crum, T.F. The effect of team success and formal structure on interpersonal relations and cohesiveness of baseball teams. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 88 – 96.

Landers, D.M., & Lueschen, G. (1974). Team performance outcome and cohesiveness of competitive co-acting groups. International Review of Sport Sociology, 2, 57 – 69.

Lenk, H. (1969). Top performance despite internal conflict. In J.W. Loy & G.S. Kenyon (Eds.), Sport, culture and society. New York: Macmillan.

Martens, R. & Peterson, J.A. (1971). Group cohesiveness as a determinant of success and member satisfaction in team performance.  International Review of Sport Sociology, 6, 49 – 61.

Melnick, M.J., & Chemers, M.H. (1974). Effects of group social structure on the success of basketball teams. Research Quarterly, 45, 1 – 8.

Nixon, H.L. (1976). Team orientations, interpersonal relations, and team success. Research Quarterly, 47, 429 – 435.

Peterson, J.A., & Martens, R. (1972). Success and residential affiliation as determinants of team cohesiveness. Research Quarterly, 43, 62 – 76.

Widmeyer, N.W., & Martens, R. When cohesion predict s performance outcome in sport. Research Quarterly, 49, 372 – 380.