M8 Enhancing Team Effectiveness

Components of Groups

The structural elements that make up a group

1. Status Hierarchy

2. Group Roles

3. Group Norms

4. Positions

Status Hierarchy

Reflects the relative standing of members on the group

Based on:

• Ascribed attributes

• Achieved attributes

Ascribed Attributes

Characteristics not earned through personal effort, such as ethnicity, gender, or family wealth

Achieved Attributes

Characteristics developed through effort such as skill, education, and experience

Status Hierarchy and Context Dependence

The attributes that result in status depend on the group’s purpose and context

• A hierarchy can change when circumstances change—for example, survival skills may matter more than job titles in an emergency

Group Roles

Expectations attached to the responsibilities members take on, often because of their ability or experience

May be:

• Formal

• Informal

Formal Role

Includes official titles like:

• Captain, assistant captain

Informal Role

Includes unofficial responsibilities like:

• Person who supports and cares for teammates

• Team motivator

• Person who challenges others or pushes performance

Group Norms

Shared expectations for behaviour, including

• Work effort and output

• Punctuality and attendance

• Language and respect

• Responses to coaches and leadership

Group Norm Significance

Even seemingly minor norm violations—such as a high-performing player repeatedly arriving late—can create damage in team unity

Positions

Refer to where members are situated within the group, physically or organizationally

• Examples include a soccer midfielder or goaltender, or the distinction between a CEO’s office in a secluded corner where they can watch over employee workspaces

Group Constructs

The broader characteristics and dynamics that influence how a group functions

1. Group Size

2. Group Status

3. Group Cohesion

4. Group Roles

5. Group Goals

Small Communities

Members of larger groups report less satisfaction, participation, and responsibility for the group’s welfare

Smaller communities can create greater accountability as members are more visible to one another

• Lecture cited a size of roughly 250 people as a threshold

• Beyond this, anonymity and weaker community responsibility increases

Group Size

Teams need enough members to perform their tasks without becoming so large that participation and accountability becomes difficult

For committees and some work groups, five members is often considered an effective size:

• Avoids voting deadlocks

• Avoids exclusion dynamics (i.e. those that occur in a group of 3)

• Provides enough people for the task

In sport, appropriate size depends on the team’s functional needs. Too few players can contribute to fatigue, conflict, or poor cohesion

Social Loafing

Reduction in individual effort when people work in a group versus when they work alone

• Occurs even among highly committed athletes

Social Loafing Causes

Common causes include:

• Unclear individual contributions or responsibilities

• Expectations that someone else will do the work

• Belief that one’s contribution is replaceable or redundant

• Tasks feeling monotonous or unchallenging

• Low personal satisfaction or meaning

• Weak group unity

Reducing Social Loafing

1. Monitor and evaluate individual effort within group tasks

2. Make each contribution meaningful and visible (reduces actual or perceived redundancy)

3. Build familiarity among group members (strengthens social bonds and accountability)

4. Clearly explain each member’s roles, responsibilities, and expected work output

Group Status

Individuals hold different beliefs, perceptions, or evaluations about the importance of various attributes or personal characteristics

• A lack of consensus regarding the status rankings or placement within a group can be detrimental to team effectiveness

Status Congruency

Teams may have both formal status and informal status

• Status congruency is strongest when members with high formal status also hold positive informal standing

• Teams are more effective when members have an accurate understanding of their place in the hierarchy and when status is not treated as the sole measure of worth

Formal and Informal Status Combinations

• HFS + PIS: Most desirable. Leader has a recognized role and earns respect via positive behaviour

• HFS + NIS: Leader is influential but undermines team values. Can lead to damage to the group. Removal of leadership role/from team may be needed.

• Different members with HFS and PIS: Can work well if individuals have positive influence and included in leadership processes.

• Different members with HFS and HIS: Source of status for at least one is negative. For example, best athlete is not the team captain; one or both possesses a poor work ethic. Removal of individual with negative influence may be needed.

Preventing Status-Related Conflict

Discuss potentially disruptive situations before the season, when emotions are less heated

Agree on how the team will respond to:

• Disliked coaching decisions or substitutions

• Not receiving desired leadership role

• Being left off a starting lineup or roster

Early commitments to team-oriented behaviour may make members more likely to uphold them later

Group Cohesion

The dynamic tendency of a group to remain united in pursuing its objectives and/or meeting members’ emotional and social needs (also described as team unity or chemistry)

Cohesion Dimensions

1. Group Integration-Task

2. Group Integration-Social

3. Individual Attractions to the Group-Task

4. Individual Attractions to the Group-Social

GI-T

Degree to which the team is united around collective goals and objectives

GI-S

Team’s shared sense of togetherness and identity beyond task goals

ATG-T

A member’s personal motivation and commitment to the team’s task

ATG-S

A member’s personal sense of belonging, acceptance, and enjoyment within the team

Task and Social Cohesion

Task and social cohesion are both significant and should be reasonably balanced

• High task cohesion, low social cohesion

  • Can lead to communication problems, weak support, and less understanding b/w teammates

• Low task cohesion, high social cohesion

  • 
    

Family Systems Theory

Psychologist Murray Bowen observed that people may improve in a treatment setting but return to old patterns when they go back to their home environment

• Suggests psychological difficulties can be not only attributed to the individual but also the system and relationships surrounding them

Family Systems Theory Applied to Teams

Same perspective can be applied to sport: consider both an athlete’s behaviour and the environment in which it occurs

• A person’s behaviour may change when the surrounding system changes; a player may, for example, perform differently after moving to another team

Wholeness

The concept that a system is more than the sum of its parts. Interactions among members create properties and patterns do not exist in individual members alone.

Wholeness Features

• Non-summativity: The whole cannot be understood by simply adding up its members

• Emergent properties: New qualities arise from relationships and interactions within the system

• Organization and patterns: A system develops relatively stable, but still changing, rules and interaction patterns

• Context dependence: People may behave differently when embedded in a team or family than when viewed inidivdually

• Hierarchal embedding: larger systems contain subsystems, such as coaching staff, positional groups, and social cliques

• Interdependence and circular influence: A change in one part can produce ripple effects throughout the system

People may also fall back into familiar roles when returning to their family of origin. Changing entrenched patterns often requires awareness and sustained effort

First-Order Change

An adjustment within the existing rules and structure; usually addresses immediate behaviour without changing underlying dynamics

• Example: Asking a teen to come home earlier for curfew, imposing consequences, temporarily restricting outings

Second-Order Change

Deeper change to the system’s rules, relationships, or underlying patterns; can involve disruption before a new equilibrium forms

• Example: Reconsidering curfew rules as teen matures (letting them stay out longer), improving communication, addressing underlying feelings of mistrust or unfairness (e.g. problem can stem from favouritism among siblings)

First Order vs Second Order Changes

First order changes are often limited or temporary as they do not address the root cause

Second order changes seeks more fundamental and lasting transformation, but can require discomfort and adaptation

• Redefines system’s identity and dynamics

Systems Thinking

Avoids automatically balming one person

• e.g. in some eating-disorders a young person’s symptoms may reflect wider family patterns that need attention

This does not remove the individual’s responsibility for their own choices and recovery; it recognizes that responsibility and change may involve the wider system as well

Boundaries

Describe how open or closed a system is to information, emotions, influence, and involvement from outside itself

Boundary Types

Rigid Boundaries

Diffuse Boundaries

Semi-Permeable Boundaries

Rigid Boundaries

Very closed to outside influence or exchange

• May contribute to isolation and limit critical thinking

Common in cults?

Semi-Permeable Boundaries

Flexible and balanced.

• Allows appropriate exchange while preserving autonomy and system’s integrity (i.e. preserves trust and sanctity of the group).

Diffuse Boundaries

Too open, with excessive movement between the system and outside world

• May weaken privacy, trust, loyalty, or group identity

Semi-Permeable Boundaries are Ideal

The ideal boundary type. Generally considered healthiest because they allow connection w/o eliminating distinct roles or individual independence.

• In families, healthy boundaries support adolescents’ development of autonomy and separate identities

• In teams, openness to other groups’ ideas and expertise can support learning and adaptation

• Excessively diffuse team boundaries can compromise loyalty or confidentiality; overly rigid boundaries can prevent useful information exchange and outside learning

Feedback and Stability

Negative feedback: means a process thatl imits change and helps maintain stability; it does not mean “bad”