Cohesion through competition

Team Cohesion Through Competition 1

How to Achieve Team Cohesion through Competition in Sport: An Organizational Model

by:

Jay K. Smith

Daphne, Alabama

May, 2015


How to Achieve Team Cohesion through Competition in Sport: An Organizational Model


Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize a practical method for coaches of any sport

team to improve team performance and cohesion through inter-squad competition and intra-

squad cooperation. While the concept of intra-team competition to improve cohesion and team

performance is not new, this paper describes a practical, task driven approach for coaches to use.

For purposes of clarity, American football is the example used to describe this approach.

Although, this task driven competition format can be applied to other sports teams, American

football has more distinctive task oriented positions than other sports, thus providing simplicity.

Also, football teams use the most formal off-season competitive scrimmage strategies in which

the first team offense and first team defense play each other in order for the coaching staff to

assess players and test game schemes. This widespread tactic is useful for coaches, but it can be

argued this creates division with the rest of the team. In-fighting amongst the individuals in each

squad (i.e. wide receivers, offensive line, etc…) can prevail, and a counter-productive attitude

may develop that breaks any cohesive advantage gained as players begin to focus on the amount

of playing time they get in relation to their teammates. However, if coaching staffs adopt a task

oriented system in which the squad coaches encourage group success and teamwork, and the

coordinator level harnesses the competitive spirit, players will be more likely to encourage each

other to become better. Pre-season scrimmages should not be scored in a traditional, regular

season-like format. Instead, scrimmages should be scored by accumulating points for successful

plays executed by any player from a specific squad against any opposing squad with naturally

opposing tasks. This means receivers would be competing two levels up at the Coordinator

level, and not amongst themselves. Building off past research, this should also diffuse anxiety


levels of players since each cohesive group will be focused on building up the less talented

players, instead of trying to dominate them for increased playing time.

Keywords: competition, cooperation, group dynamics, motivation, team cohesion


Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize a practical method for coaches of any sport

team to improve team performance and cohesion through inter-squad competition and intra-

squad cooperation. While the concept of intra-team competition to improve cohesion and

performance in sports teams is not new, this paper describes a task driven approach for coaches

to incorporate. For purposes of clarity, American football is the example used to describe this

approach.

Although this task driven competition format can be applied to other sports teams,

American football has more distinctive task oriented positions than most other sports, thus

provides simplicity. Football teams also have the most formal off-season competitive scrimmage

strategies in which the first team offense and defense play each other in order for the coaching

staff to assess players and test game schemes. This widespread tactic is useful for coaches, but it

can also be argued that this creates division with the rest of the team. In-fighting amongst the

individuals in each squad (wide receivers, offensive line, etc.) can prevail, and a counter-

productive attitude may develop that breaks any cohesive advantage gained as individual players

begin to focus on the amount of playing time receive in relation to their teammates.

If coaching staffs adopt a task oriented system in which the squad coaches encourage

group success and teamwork, and the coordinator level is where the competitive spirit is

harnessed, players will be more likely to encourage each other to improve their performance.

Simply stated, the pre-season scrimmages should not be scored in a traditional regular season

format, but should be scored by accumulating points for successful plays executed by any player

from each squad against an opposing squad whose tasks are in opposition naturally. This

structure would encourage players that play the same position to cooperate in order to improve


each other’s performance. A cooperative attitude at the lowest level of a football team’s

hierarchy will lower the anxiety levels of many players early in the team’s formation, before the

season starts (Teymori, Khaki, & Nikbakhsh, 2014). For example, the entire wide receiving

squad, whether first team starters or bench players, would receive points for every completed

pass. The defensive backs would receive points for every pass not completed because they

batted the ball away, intercepted it, or disrupted the play by preventing the wide receiver from

running the appropriate route. This means receivers would be competing two levels up at the

coordinator level, and not amongst themselves. Building off past research, this should also

diffuse anxiety levels of players since each cohesive group will be focused on improving the

performance of the less talented players, instead of trying to dominate each other for increased

playing time.

Discussion

The foundation of this process is for the coaching staff to encourage unit cooperation in

distinct groups that are either one level up or down as described in the coaching hierarchy (see

Figure 1). At the same time, coaches two levels up encourage competition. In a pure, fully

staffed football team, this would leave the head coach as an active observer who is not

emotionally attached to any individual player. The head coach is responsible for managing the

competition between the offense and defense, and is free to concentrate his or her attention on

team schemes and strategy without being bogged down with individual performance.


Although most football teams require some coaches to perform two or more positions, all

teams follow a standard hierarchy and division labor (see Figure 1).

The head coach typically has three coordinators that manage the offense, defense, and special

teams, respectively. These coordinators in turn, have individual position coaches that train and

manage each player. While the coordinators are responsible for the overall schemes of either the

offense or defense, position coaches are charged with the development of individual players that

are grouped together by function. The wide receiver coach, for example, is in charge of the

development of all wide receivers. It is also important to understand that most of the tasks that

position coaches train are individual tasks such as catching, running, tackling, or blocking.

These tasks, by nature, are coactive tasks. Therefore, the majority of tasks taught by position

coaches are individual efforts whose outcome is aggregated for the team’s success or failure.

These coactive tasks are similar to a collegiate golf team in which each golfer’s score is not

dependent on the other players, but does influence the team’s overall performance. Because

these coactive tasks are fundamental skills of the particular position players, these tasks are the

primary focus early in the training cycle when the team is first being formed. Typically, coaches

spend this time focusing on player competition in order to set an aggressive tone early in the

season. Aggressive and often negative language is used while running fundamental drills during

practice and even during conditioning workouts. However, if coaches use this time early in the

Figure 1: Standard organizational chart for a football team


training cycle for cooperative teambuilding attitudes, versus the usual competitive philosophy of

the players fighting among themselves for starting positions, position coaches will be able to

identify the various informal roles within their particular squad. Instead of encouraging

competition between individuals of the same position, rather encouraging cooperation among

those players, the position coach will have formed a group that is in constant interaction. Not

only will this interaction be constant as players are working together and not as individuals, their

interaction will be positive in nature. This positive interaction will help the position coaches

quickly identify the informal leaders since the players will be focused on working together

instead of trying to beat each other out for a spot in the starting lineup (Cope, Eys, Beauchamp,

Schinke, & Bosselut, 2011).

Traditionally, the position coach level is where the intra-team competition occurs, as

individual receivers compete against each other for playing time and the accolades placed on

them by the coaches. In this system, there is little incentive for players to encourage other

players to be better, because the starter may risk losing playing time. This player versus player

competition at the lowest level contradicts a multitude of research that proves when coaches

engage in positive, task-oriented interactions with players, a higher perception of team cohesion

and improved performance is achieved (Carron & Eys, Group Dynamics In Sport Fourth Edition,

2012, pp. 284-288). Thus, when position coaches encourage competition at the the lowest level

within the hierarchy of a football team and in the smallest groups, these coaches are missing

opportunities to establish a team comprised of many smaller, cohesive teams that can influence

the overall performance later in the training cycle as games approach. Not only will small

groups of players with like task responsibilities be cohesive early on in the training cycle, but

roles and norms of appropriate attitudes of those players will be clearly defined. Role clarity is


important to establish early in the formation of any sports teams, and the more clarity assigned

those roles, the more cohesion and collective efficacy will be present (Hodge, Henry, & Smith,

2014). Meanwhile, before and during the season, most coaches attempt to shift their focus on the

cohesion of the entire team. This shift conflicts with months of players competing with each

other, and is arguably too late for the team to reap any benefits they would enjoy from a new

practice of cooperation among players. This shift from competition to cooperation can be

confusing to many players, thus resulting in interpersonal conflict and a lack of cohesion among

players (see Figure 2).

One level up from the position coaches is the offensive, defensive, and special team

coordinators. The coordinator is two levels up from the players. Because of the separation

between the coordinator and the players, the coordinator can safely encourage competition when

interacting with players as individuals. The coordinators’ emphasis on competition would negate

any pitfalls of social loafing that may occur among groups of players of any given function. A

leading cause of social loafing, the phenomenon in which individual effort is reduced when

participating as part of a group, in sports teams is that many players will become too secure in

Figure 2: Traditional division for scrimmages. Most teams pit first team offense versus first or second team defense to analyze player performance. This requires coaches to assess individual players against different opponents, or rotate players into starting positions causing players to feel as though they are competing for playing time. Therefore, there is no incentive for one player to help another to get better.


their status on the team as either a starting player or a substitute player. If players do not believe

consequences, good or bad, exist for the amount of effort the player puts forth, then social

loafing can occur during practices (Carron & Eys, Group Dynamics In Sport Fourth Edition,

2012; Bohlander & Snell, 2010 ). Two-level-down coaching focuses on individual performance

and allows for self-enhancing attribution that will increase the motivation to seek self-

improvement by each individual (Carron & Eys, Group Dynamics In Sport Fourth Edition, 2012,

p. 293 and 334). Meanwhile, the Position Coach is constantly reinforcing teamwork and

improvement, as he or she is charged with the performance of every player that plays a certain

position (see Figure 3). This method of one-level-down coaching shifts the focus of the players

to team enhancing attribution at the earliest time and the lowest level. This shift of emphasis on

the team’s performance by the smallest groups of players institutes social norms of individual

responsibility in relationship to team success or failure (Vincer & Loughead, 2010). While this

conflict between coaches may seem to be disruptive, the level of interaction between each coach

and each player is not balanced. Therefore the cooperative encouragement of the position coach

would have more impact on individual players when it comes to player-to-player interaction.

Since the position coach would monitor individual, skill-centric drills early in the training

season, a sense of cooperation would first be established throughout the entire team. Therefore,

long before the spring practice game, the composition of the team would be a collection of

smaller teams whose focus is to make each particular team better through cooperation. This part

of the theory captures the conclusions of Carron et al. study in which they hypothesized that

“increased cohesion would be a catalyst for increased coordination in sports where task

interactions are essential for group success” (Carron, Colman, & Wheeler, Cohesion and

Performance in Sport: A Meta Analysis, 2002, p. 172). Although Carron et al. found that there is


no cohesion-performance correlation based on task type, using a Group Environment

Questionnaire to provide an operational measure of team cohesion, they did find evidence that

coactive sports have a stronger cohesion-performance relationship. In other words, increased

cooperation from coactive competitors, such as the individuals that play the same position, raised

the performance of the group. For example, the collective group of wide receivers would

perform better in their assigned tasks if they all viewed themselves as part of a cooperative

whole, despite the fact each individual’s ability to accomplish a given task does not affect the

other receivers’ ability to do the same task. (Carron, Colman, & Wheeler, Cohesion and

Performance in Sport: A Meta Analysis, 2002, p. 182)

Once the team’s training shifts toward more collective preparation, running plays for

example, the individual players would already be cohesive in smaller groups, and have improved

each other’s performance. As the groups of players are organized by functions without

delineation of starting players and bench players each group would begin to compete against the

other groups with the position coaches continually encouraging cooperation in order to defeat

another position coach and those players. Scoring of inter-squad scrimmages should be

conducted by the functions that are required by each position. During the scrimmage, position

coaches are still encouraging cooperation within each group, but the coordinator challenges each

individual to beat out the other players for a spot in the starting lineup (see Figure 3). Receivers

are cycled through plays against the defense, the receiver coach is actively keeping score of how

many catches the whole group of receivers make. Meanwhile, the coordinator is challenging

each receiver to be the best receiver of the group by providing rewards for them.

Rewards should be centered on an appearance of expert power. For this example, the

wide receiver who makes the most catches is awarded by being assigned as a trainer for the other


positions that may have similar functions, such as the tight ends and running backs that often

catch passes. Thus, the coordinator would be effectively encouraging cooperation one level

down as players of different positions would join together to create a better offense in order to

compete against the defense and vice versa. This model also works for other positions. This

includes offensive linemen teaching running backs pass blocking techniques, running backs

teaching receivers how to break tackles after the catch, and even physical training like tight ends

teaching offense linemen techniques to improve quickness and agility.

The key factor of success is that all of the coaches, whether a position coach or

coordinator, pay close attention to the interpersonal style they use when interacting with various

players. This may be particularly challenging for the coordinators who may be required to shift

from a style of interaction that is competitive and aggressive with a player at a certain time and a

style that is positive and cooperative with that same player, but different situation. As Hodge et

al. determined, the techniques team leaders use when interacting with their teammates greatly

Figure 3: Players should be grouped by function. In other words, all wide receivers are grouped together, and scored as a whole during scrimmages. Cooperation is among all of the players that perform a function. This encourages the most skilled to help and encourage the less skilled, thus everyone gets better. Competition is between different functions and offense vs. defense. Therefore, there is more competition for everyone, but the functions must work together to win. In other words, the running backs must work together because their cumulative score is counted against every other squad. Note: due to the unique nature of Special Teams, and the fact that these players often are part of another squad, they are removed from this study.


influences the team’s environment (Hodge, Henry, & Smith, 2014; Sullivan, 2013). Therefore,

in order to promote a strong sense of competition and to defeat social loafing, a defensive

coordinator may use intense, harsh, and possibly negative language and mannerisms when one of

the Linebackers misses a tackle. Since the player, a linebacker in this case, is two levels down,

the interaction will be brief and may spark cohesion amongst the whole group of linebackers as

his teammates try to defend the mistake. The position coach who will have longer, more in

depth interactions with that player, augments this. However, when the offense and defense

square off during scrimmages in order to practice unit schemes, the coordinator should use

positive, reinforcing language that explains how the player’s missed tackle affected the entire

defense. This should inspire not only other linebackers to help their teammate, but also players

of other positions to help demonstrate how to shed the opposing blockers so that the next time

that linebacker will not miss the tackle.

Figure 4: Competition should be through the coordinator, or two levels up. One level up coaches should encourage teamwork in order for the Offense to win as a whole. One level up coaches should encourage WRs teaching other WRs on catching techniques or blocking techniques based on these individual skills, not overall performance. This creates the Primary No Competition Zones (NCZ) outlined in red. The Coordinator should develop Secondary No Competition Zones, outlined in yellow, that encourage inter-group cooperation such as OL teaching RBs how to pass block better. This second NCZ is managed by the Coordinator for cooperation, but encourages competition within each squad by the individual players. The Offensive Coordinator is two levels removed, and therefore able to make assessments without causing conflict.


This type of specialized interaction between coach and player will reinforce role

acceptance among the team. To further the above example, when the defensive coordinator calls

one of the linemen to teach the linebacker how to avoid the block in order to make the tackle, the

chosen lineman should be a team captain and leader (see Figure 4). This provides the team

captain role clarity and diffuses any role conflict among the players because the coordinator

provided the necessary expert and legitimate power. Thus, the lineman’s self-efficacy in the role

of team leader and captain is increased (Carron & Eys, Group Dynamics In Sport Fourth Edition,

2012, p. 181). Furthermore, Benson et al. proved the importance of an athlete’s perception of his

or her role and the roles of teammates when it comes to group cohesion. Benson et al.’s 2013

study determined that players would be more accepting of a leader’s role as the team captain if

they perceive that the role has meaning and importance. By tasking various players with the

duties of training less skilled players, the coordinator and position coaches are displaying the

importance of the captain’s role long before the first game when the captains are announced and

walk onto the field for the coin flip (Benson, Eys, Surya, Dawson, & Scjneider, 2013, p. 273).

This process of two levels competition and one level cooperation facilitates important

behaviors among the coaching staff that will influence the team’s cohesion. In their 2014 article,

Zakrajsek et al. noted the importance of the behaviors of the coaches on team cohesion. By

creating a competitive and cooperative atmosphere among the different levels of the team’s

hierarchy, the coaching staff can show a competitive or cooperative attitude with each other

based on the performance of their players. This can further tighten the various teams within the

team as their coach is subjected to similar interactions with the next level coach. Also, once the

offensive and defensive units scrimmage in the collective training block, the position coaches


will display a cooperative attitude, thus influencing the attitudes of the players (Zakrjsek,

Abildso, Hurst, & Watson, 2007).

Conclusion

In conclusion, coaching staff of sport teams should closely analyze the organization of

their team and the method of pre-season training in order to capitalize on previously published

studies and conclusions that identified the influences competition and cooperation have on team

cohesion. While team hierarchy among coaching staffs is critical to the operations of the team,

especially during pre-season training, coaches should include the players as the lowest level of

the hierarchy. This not only allows coaches to organize the players by function, which many

already do, but also allows a framework on how coach-player interactions can be focused to

achieve an attitude of cooperation or competition amongst the players at specified times in the

training cycle. This type of organizational system allows a sense of cooperation among players

of a specific function or position, thus capitalizing on the benefits of a cohesive group at the

earliest time. Two-levels-up coaching focuses on competition among individuals will

simultaneously capitalize on the benefits that strong competition provides, including preventing

social loafing and increasing self-motivation to improve performance by each player on the team.

Applications to Other Sports

Although American Football was used as an example for this concept, this organizational

competition concept can easily be applied to other team sports. One caveat to applying this

concept to other sports is that the team must be relatively large similar to American football. If

the team is too small, the separation of hierarchal level will not be great enough and would not

contain the necessary diversity in players or sport-required tasks. Also, the sport must be task

interrelated in that each player’s actions directly impact other players on the field. Therefore


team sports in which the performance of an individual is simply aggregated to create a team

score would not have the wide variety of tasks to create the necessary interaction. Therefore,

team sports such as wrestling, tennis, and golf would not benefit or be able to appropriately apply

the techniques described in this paper. However, coaches of soccer, rugby, and lacrosse teams

could benefit greatly from the use of this concept.

For example, a rugby teams are often divided into Forwards and Backs. Forwards are

traditionally the larger, more power based players, while the backs are speed and skill based. As

a result, the coaching staff has two primary assistant coaches for the forwards and the backs

respectively. These assistant coaches can be viewed in the same context as the offensive and

defensive coordinators in American football. Forwards and backs are further divided into

specific positions based on physical attributes and task responsibilities. The forwards are further

divided into the tight five and the loose forwards, or back row. The tight five form the core of

the scrum, and are the largest, most powerful players on the field. These five players, not

including bench substitutes, bind together by holding onto each other tightly in preparation to

engage the opposing tight five. These players physically restrain each other by gripping the

uniform of the others, including the other team. As a result, speed and quickness are useful

attributes for a tight five player in the open field, but are not required since the player cannot

transition into open field play until released by another player during the majority of playing

time.

The loose forwards on the other hand are bound to the edges of the tight five, but are not

restricted by the bind of another player. One of the key tasks of a loose forward is to

immediately put pressure on the opposing ball carrier as soon as a defensive scrum is over.

Therefore, physical size and quickness are both important characteristics for loose forwards, but


neither is a primary concern. In other words, loose forwards must be strong and fast, but not the

strongest or the fastest on the team. Also, the tight five are more likely to carry the ball in traffic

on offense, similar to a fullback in American football, and defend in large clusters during free

play. While the loose forwards also operate in large clusters and confined areas, they are more

likely to support the backs in the open field whether on offense or defense. Consequently, open

field tackling, passing skills, and the ability to break tackles are more important skills for a loose

forward than they are for a tight five player. Similar division of the backs should be done in

order to improve specific skills required. That being said, rugby is a fluid sport in which players

from different positions may find themselves being required to execute various skills of the other

positions. Therefore, cooperative and competitive interaction would benefit a rugby player

greatly. The same could be said for soccer, lacrosse, and any other task interdependent sport

with a large number of players required.


Works CitedBenson, A. J., Eys, M., Surya, M., Dawson, K., & Scjneider, M. (2013). Athlete's Perceptions of

Role Acceptance in Interdependant Sport Teams. The Sport Psychologist, 269-280.

Bohlander, G., & Snell, S. (2010). Managing Human Resources Edition 15. Mason, OH: South-Western, Cengage Learning.

Carron, A. V., & Eys, M. A. (2012). Group Dynamics In Sport Fourth Edition. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University.

Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., & Wheeler, J. (2002). Cohesion and Performance in Sport: A Meta Analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 168-184.

Carron, A. V., Hausenblas, H. A., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2003). The Psychology of Physical Activity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cope, C. J., Eys, M. A., Beauchamp, M. R., Schinke, R. J., & Bosselut, G. (2011). Informal Roles on Sport Teams. International Journal Of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19-30.

Hentschel, S., Muhlhuesser, G., & Sliwka, D. (2012). The Impact of Managerial Change on Perfrmance. The Role of Team Heterogeneity. CESinfo Group.

Hodge, K., Henry, G., & Smith, W. (2014). A Case Study of Ecellence in Elite Sport: Motivational Climate in a World Champion Team. Sport Psychologist, 60-74.

Sullivan, P. (2013). Humor Styles as a Predictor of Satisfaction Within Sports Teams. De Gruyter Mouton, 343-349.

Teymori, S., Khaki, A. A., & Nikbakhsh, R. (2014). The Relationship Between Team Cohesion and Anxiety on Team Sports Student Athletes. Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences, 414-417.

USA Rugby. (2013, March). Level 200 Coaching Course. American Rugby Model.

Vincer, D., & Loughead, T. M. (2010). The Relationship Among Athlete Leadership Behaviors and Cohesion in Team Sports. The Sport Psychologist, 448-467.

Zakrjsek, R. A., Abildso, C. G., Hurst, J. R., & Watson, J. C. (2007). The Relationships Among Coaches' and Athletes' Perceptions of Coaching Staff Cohesion, Team Cohesion, and Performance. Retrieved from Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology: http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol191ss3/CoachingStaffCohesion.html

Date post:	11-Apr-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jay-smith
View:	73 times
Download:	0 times

Cohesion through competition

Documents