8.

Leadership, group cohesion, and audience effects

Leadership, group cohesion, and audience effects are three important areas within social psychology. Lets take a brief look at how these areas of inquiry apply to sport psychology.

Leadership
Its almost impossible to view a televised team sport activity without hearing the announcers make some mention of the leadership qualities of one or more of the players. layer leadership, while often mentioned in the media, hasnt been studied thoroughly by sport scientists and remains a mostly une!plored area. "n the other hand, quite a bit of research has been conducted looking at the coach as leader. #tudying coaching leadership in sports has been anchored for three$plus decades by ackianathan %helladurai &aka '%hella to his peers and students( of the "hio #tate )niversity. *is approach is known as the Multidimensional Model of Sport Leadership, and he proposes that leader performance and follower satisfaction depend on the way in which actual, required, and preferred leader behaviors mesh together.

76

+ + +

Actual behaviors are ,ust that- the behaviors that the leader engages in irrespective of norms or preferences. Preferred leader behavior refers to those actions the followers would like to see in a leader. Required behaviors are those e!pected of a leader, such as organi.ational demands.

%helladurais Leadership Scale for Sports &L##( is composed of /0 items measuring five dimensions of leadership. If youre a coach or leader in sports, see if your work matches up in these five broad areas1. raining and instruction behavior. *ere, demanding physical training standards are implemented, the skills and tactics of the sport are taught, and team relation$ ships and interactions are structured and coordinated. 2. !emocratic behavior. 3his means allowing players to have some say about group goals, practice methods, and game tactics and strategies. 4. Autocratic behavior. #tress here is placed on inde$ pendent decision$making and personal authority. 3heres always going to be some need for these traits in order for an organi.ation to function efficiently. /. Social support behavior. *ere, the emphasis is on the coach showing concern for his or her athletes and fos$ tering good social relationships among team members.

77

6.

Re"arding behavior. 7ecogni.ing and rewarding desirable behaviors are key aspects of this leadership dimension.

3he L## has been used widely and its validity, reliability, and utility within sports leadership have been demonstrated. 8 ma,or player in leadership evaluation and training in sports is #eff #anssen of 9anssen eak erformance &www. ,eff,anssen.com(. *e has studied leadership for years and has developed a scale for its assessment. *is scale has 2/ items on which leaders evaluate themselves on a five$ point scale. 3he first half of the test measures four sub$ components- %ommitment, %onfidence, %omposure, and %haracter, which he calls Leader by $%ample. 3he second half of the test is called &ocal eam Leader, with sub$com$ ponents of :ncourager;%onfidence <uilder, :ncourager; 7efocuser, :ncourager;3eam <uilder, and :nforcer. 9anssen says that scores between 2/ and 5= indicate the person is not a leader at all. #cores of =0;106 suggest the person is a solid vocal leader, and 106 to 120 are scores of spectacular vocal leaders.

Lets say that a player gives himself a 116 but his coaches see him as an 57 and his team$ mates view him as an 56 on the 9anssen scale. %learly, theres a gap between the way the player views himself and how hes seen by others. Its 75

9anssens e!perience that nine out of every ten athletes who aspire to be leaders are 'a"areness challenged. 9anssen suggests that its incumbent on the coaches to then teach the player the skills and insights necessary to assume a position of leadership. 8s well, 9anssen says that regular qualitative and quantitative feedback is essential. In the case of quantitative feedback, he recommends periodic use of his scale. 9anssen conducts annual workshops all over the )# in cases where coaches and athletes want to go above and beyond in developing team leaders.

Leadership models "ithin psychology

>uch literature has been devoted to leadership in the broad field of psychology, particularly those aspects deal$ ing with business, industry, or the military. #everal models for viewing leadership have evolved over the years, and some of the more well$known are+ rait heory, also known as the '?reat >an theory. 3his model assumes that leadership is a trait that will make one a leader in most or all situations. 3he only trait to continually receive research support is intelligence, and its a weak relationship at best. 'ehavior heory. 3his approach emphasi.es what the leader actually does rather than what he or she is.

7=

(ontingency Model. 3his model places much empha$ sis both on characteristics of the leader and also on those of the situation. 3ask$oriented or autocratic lead) ers and relationship$oriented or democratic leaders are emphasi.ed in this model. Path*+oal heory presupposes that the main func$ tion of the leader is to stay out of the way and remove obstacles, thus providing a 'well$lighted path for subordinates. Life (ycle heory. >uch emphasis in this model is placed on subordinate maturity and the ability of the leader to harness subordinate energies. ,unctional Model. Leaders are seen here as task$ori$ ented &instrumental(, or interpersonal, emotional, and social &e%pressive(. Its not unusual in coaching to find task$oriented head coaches pairing themselves with an e!pressive assistant who tends to the social, emotional, and interpersonal needs of team members.

+roup cohesion
All that year, the animals worked like slaves. But they were happy in their work: they grudged no effort or sacrifice, well aware that everything they did was for the benefit of themselves and those of their kind who would come after them. ?eorge "rwell, Animal Farm &1=/6(

50

Harmony isnt important. All that matters is winning and getting paid. %harles <arkley, former professional basketball player ne year we had si! guys in "ail. #ot together, because that would have meant teamwork. 9on #poelstra, resident of the @<8 @ew 9ersey @ets, 1==4;=6

%oaches, players, and sports commentators often invoke group cohesion or team harmony to e!plain success in sports. 3he ittsburgh irates of ma,or league baseball are often cited as an e!ample of the positive outcomes of team cohesion. 3heir theme song, 'Ae are Bamily by #ister #ledge, became the team mantra, playing continu$ ously throughout their successful run to the Aorld #eries title in 1=7=. "n the other hand, there are e!amples in which groups have e!celled despite an apparent lack of team harmony. 3he "akland 8s of ma,or league baseball in the 1=70s fought continually on and off the field while winning three consecutive Aorld #eries titles in 1=72, 1=74, and 1=7/. 3he word cohesion is derived from the Latin cohaesus which means to cleave or stick together. 8lbert %arron, a sport psychologist from %anada speciali.ing in studying group cohesion, defines cohesion as follows- 'Cynamic process that is reflected in the group tendency to stick

51

together while pursuing its goals and ob,ectives. *e sug$ gests that there are three ma,or conceptual issues related to group cohesion1. Coes cohesion develop in progressive, linear fashion once the group is established &i.e. the linear model(D 2. Coes cohesion oscillate like a pendulum throughout the groups life cycle &i.e. the pendular model(D 4. In a groups life cycle, is there an increase in cohesion, a leveling off, and then a decrease as the group dissolves &i.e. the life cycle model(D

he linear model in practice 3he linear model was formulated in 1=66 by Cr <ruce 3uckman, who talks of forming, storming, norming, and performing. Lets assume youre the captain of a newly$formed cricket team. Eour role as captain is to be aware of the processes that will take place as the team develops, and youre also responsible for putting into practice the four$stage process suggested by 3uckmans linear model of group cohesion. 3his is how the model works in practice+ Curing the forming stage, the players get to know each other and learn the task demands ahead of them.

52

+ +

3he storming phase is characteri.ed by polari.ation, rebellion, and conflict while players are sorting out roles and personalities. In the norming stage, the group comes back together as a cohesive unit, thus allowing them to move on to F 3he performing stage where team goals are pursued in a cohesive fashion.

3he pendular model is associated with #. <udges work in 1=51. <udge suggested that groups oscillate from cohe$ sion to differentiation to conflict to resolution &i.e. cohesion( to conflict to resolution, and so on. <udge predicted that a team would spend the entire season in a pendular cycle of conflict to cohesion to conflict to cohesion. In 1=6/ 3heodore >ills proposed a life cycle model with five stages- &1( encounterG &2( testing of boundaries and cre$ ation of rolesG &4( creation of a normative systemG &/( pro$ duction stageG and &6( separation and dissolution as the life cycle of the team plays itself out.

,actors affecting group cohesion

?roup cohesion is affected by variables such as group si.e, the task itself, team tenure, and satisfaction. In general, its easier to facilitate team cohesion in smaller groups. "f particular interest to sport psychologists is a phenomenon known as social loafing, or the decrease in individual effort resulting from the presence of co$workers or team$mates.

54

Aere all familiar with the group pro,ect in which there are eight members, one or two of whom end up doing all the work, though the others are quick to claim credit despite minimal effort and input. Imagine you have been put in charge of an eight$person team and want to get equal involvement of all participants in order to avoid the problem of social loafing. 3o ensure that all are pulling their weight, you should devise ways to make individual effort identifiable, keep group identifica$ tion high, keep lines of communication open, be aware that motivation may wa! and wane from time to time, provide occasional breaks in activity, and impress on each group member the admonition offered by sport psychologist Cr %harles *ardy- '#om!on! will notice if you dont do your b!st. 3ask demands do make a difference in cohesion, simply because different sports have different degrees of team involvement. #ome sports, such as soccer, 8merican football or cricket, are considered to be interactive and demand a lot of team interaction and cooperation. "ther sports such as golf and archery may have a team component but they are still largely individual, or coactive. 3he length of time a team stays together can e!ert a profound impact on cohesion. In this regard, sport psy$ chologists talk of team half)life, or the amount of time it takes the roster of a team to turn over due to attrition by 5/

60H. 7elated to this is winning, and successful teams in general stay together longer, a probable indicator of team cohesion.

Imagine that you have two very good friends on your advanced youth soccer team, and are pretty much fed up with their pronounced tendency to pass to each other to the detriment of other players. Eoure convinced their friendship is costing your team goals in critical situations. 3o break up this monopoly, you should stress to them the importance of keeping all team$mates involved, separate their playing positions to minimi.e their selfish tendencies, and assign them to separate rooms when the team travels so that they develop other strong and productive relationships with team$mates. Binally, satisfaction e!erts some influence on cohesion, but the relationship is a tricky, chicken$before$the$egg one at best. <riefly stated, the argument goes- Coes cohesion lead to satisfaction or does satisfaction lead to cohesionD 3his direction of causality has triggered much discussion and research, and its many nuances are beyond the scope of this book.

Audience effects
8udience effects operate as a two$way street. In one direc$ tion are the effects an audience has on performance, and in 56

the other the effects of competition on the audience, aka the fans. Aith regard to the first question, it seems safe to say that audience influences on a beginning athlete are largely negative &what is known in psychology as evaluative apprehension(, may be either slightly positive or slightly negative on an intermediate performer, and are positive with the highly skilled athlete. 7eal$life sports events are characteri.ed by an interac$ tive effect- the fans affect the behavior of the players and vice versa. #port psychologists are interested in this give and take relationship between fans and athletes. 3ake, for e!ample, the home advantage. Its a generally accepted a!iom that the home team, all other things being equal, has an advantage associated with playing in their home venue. 3hey are performing in front of mostly friendly fans, know their venue well from practice and games, arent fatigued from travel, slept in their own beds the night before, and so on. 3hese things add up to a subtle home advantage. In general, research supports this home relationship in a variety of sports including baseball, basketball, cricket, soc$ cer, softball, wrestling, and the summer and winter "lympic games. Interestingly however, there is research suggesting that there may actually be a home disadvantage in criti$ cal games. 8nalyses have been made of the final games of the baseball Aorld #eries and the @ational <asketball 8ssociation &@<8( championships. )sing fielding errors as an indicator of stress, the home team in the final game of

56

the Aorld #eries makes more errors than the visitors. In basketball, the home team shoots free throws less accu$ rately than the opponents. <oth situations can determine the outcome of critical games, and the results suggest a home field disadvantage. 3his is thought to be related to pressure on the players e!erted by adoring fans.

8nother interesting study focuses on 'as-ing in Reflected +lory &<I7?ing(. <I7?ing is related to the glory by association that fans receive from identifying with a winner. 7esearch indicates that, for e!ample, university students in the )# are prone to wear significantly more school$related paraphernalia ; caps, socks, sweaters, 3$shirts and shoes with university logos on them ; to class on >ondays after winning football games. %onversely, they wear less gear identifying them with their school after losses. Ae all like to be associated with a win$ ner, and the research on <I7?ing has supported this rela$ tionship with actual data. 3here are many other aspects of the fan;athlete relation$ ship that could be e!plored but time and space again limit the conversation. #uffice it to say that the fan;athlete inter$ action makes for some interesting discussions. 8s we shall see in the chapter on violence and aggression, this relation$ ship is not always a healthy one.

57

Leadership, group cohesion, and audience effects are three important components of the social psychology of sport.

55