KWL sheet What do I know about group

KWL - sheet What do I know about group dynamics. What I would like to know about group dynamics? What I have learnt about group dynamics?

Group success

Home learning • Questions on Page 203 in for Friday via email.

Card Exercise • • Need one observer One group of 4 One group of 3 One group of 2

What is a group? • Page 194 and 195

Evolution of a group - worksheet • • Forming - get together Storming - competition for status/influence Norming - rules/behaviour stabilise Performing - work as a unit – Tuckman (1965)

Tuckman’s model

Group Cohesion • “The resultant of all the forces acting on members to remain in the group” Festinger, et al. (1950) • “The tendency of a group to stick together and remain in the pursuit of its goals and objectives” Carron (1982) • Cohesion reflects strength of bond among members of a group: – “There can be no such thing as a non-cohesive group; it is a contradiction in terms. If a group exists it is to some extent cohesive” (Donelly, Carron, & Chelladurai, 1978)

Cohesion • Cohesion? • Task cohesion? • Social cohesion?

Group dynamics example

Explain the genius…

Bootcamp • It takes people from all backgrounds, and from different parts of the country who may have nothing in common. • They are given the same appearance, which identifies them as the same. • The instructor gives them a shared negative experience that will give them something in common. • In one quick experience they become a group.

Cohesion. . . • involves resistance to group disruption • involves commitment to group goals • involves individual responsibility for the achievement of goals • is the basis of the sense of co-operation between team members (i. e. team spirit) • is a shared commitment to a task • can be either co-acting (rowing), or interacting (football, rugby).

Measuring cohesion • Observation of behaviour • Sociogram • Questionnaire - The Group Environment Questionnaire

Do cohesive groups win? • Are cohesive groups successful, or does success cause cohesion? • Research has shown that cohesive groups are more successful. • There are exceptions!!!!! - Holmes & Redgrave, Rodman and Jordan • Desire to win may supersede personal dislikes • task cohesion overcomes social cohesion • Cohesion can be commitment to the task and to the social aspirations of the group. • Cohesion alone cannot ensure success.

Carron’s (1988) Model for the Sport Team as a Group Member Attributes Group Products Group Structure Group Environment Group Cohesion Group Processes Individual Products

Carron’s model explained • Group etc. • Group composition - gender, resources, compatibility, environment - group size, home advantage, etc. structure - positions, status, norms, roles, etc. cohesion - can be task or social – Task - group works to achieve a goal. – Social - group gets on well. • Group processes - communication, co-operation, competition, etc. • Group products - winning, losing, outside of sport starting a family. • Individual products - personal satisfaction, bonus, etc.

Strategies to develop an effective group and cohesion • Page 199

Example of group norms Are you sitting in your ‘normal’ seat? Why do you sit there?

Productivity (Steiner’s Model) Actual Productivity = Potential Productivity If 2 individuals in a tug-of-war team are each able to pull 100 kg, their potential productivity is 200 kg. However, they will pull less than this, probably around 180 kg because of the inability to coordinate their efforts and/or because each person might expect the other to carry the main load. Therefore there are process losses of 20 kg. - Process Losses

Who is going to win? ? • Group A will beat Group B if: – Group A possesses greater relevant resources and experiences fewer or equal process losses – Group A possesses equal relevant resources but experiences fewer process losses – Group A possesses less resources but experiences much less process loss

Football example with numbers • If Arsenal’s potential productivity = 90 and Hull City’s potential productivity = 60, Hull can still win. • If Arsenal experience process losses equal to 40, and Hull only lose 5, Hull’s actual productivity will = 55, while Arsenal will = 50. • This is how giant killings happen each year.

Causes of process losses • Process losses are commonly caused by: – Lack of co-ordination of effort, – Motivation lapses (someone else will pick up the effort for me…) – Lack of communication

The Ringlemann effect • Ringlemann observed individuals, groups of 2, 3, and 8 people pulling on a rope. • Did 2 people pull twice as hard as 1 person? NO! 1 in a group of 2 pulled on average 93% of the individual score. In groups of 3 it fell to 85%, and groups of 8 to 49%.

Social loafing • “The tendency for individuals to put in less than maximum effort when working as part of a group”. • This is different from the Ringlemann effect. • Latane (1979) found that people in groups do not clap as hard as individuals - individual effort is lost in a crowd!

How to beat social loafing and the Ringlemann effect! • Identify individual contribution - individual playing statistics - this be detrimental to cohesion • Increase peer pressure • Improve group co-ordination skills (set plays) • Select ‘team players’ • Give more responsibility / set individual roles / targets

What else can coaches do? • Limit process losses. • Ensure that players are clear about their roles within the team. • Establish clear team rules and expectations. • Encourage social cohesion, but do not expect everyone to socialize together. • Democracy increases cohesion - allow the team to make some decisions. • Team building exercises.

Summary • A group is 2 or more individuals working towards a common goal. • Group cohesion can be related to the task or to social relationships. • The Ringlemann effect and social loafing explain how some groups underperform.

‘Team’ talks • Team talks are open only to group members. • As such they bring the group together. • Some team talks are more effective than others… Compare these examples

http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=A GNr. J-e 2 h. B 8

What were the differences…? Next week… leadership