Cohesion of Miami Sharks Team - Essay Example

 Cohesion of Miami Sharks Team Section One: Behavior American football is famous for the manner in which people play it with aggression. There is extreme roughness of the play that has occasionally led to fatalities each year despite players wearing protective clothing. The roles in the teams are significant in helping cohesion building. Miami Sharks performed dismally against Emperors because the groups lacked cohesion among them. The groups had a role ambiguity and their group norms kept constantly changing. Consequently, Sharks suffered poor performance where they lost 32-7 against Emperors. The fact that one of the players attempted to fight Beamen, using abusive language against him too also contributed to poor performance. As a result, Sharks booked themselves a time out leading to the miserable result. Before the match between Sharks and emperor, poor cohesion had already begun, following Beamen remarks at a party that defense ought to adjust their effort. It is evident that both parties lacked cohesion and respect for one another from extracts of either team. Various other extracts also reveal circumstances under which the team mistreated Beamen. For instance, he had an interview that was more self-centered because at no point did the interview refer to his team. The essay, therefore, focuses on cohesion and the effects it has on the outcome of the Miami Sharks team. Section Two: Explanation Carron’s (1982) conceptual model that covers team cohesion in sports explains the Miami Sharks behavior. Carron’s developed and organized his theory to analyze team cohesion, particularly in four main perspectives. The perspectives include leadership, environmental, personal and team factors. Environmental aspects consider the team’s situations. On personal factors, Carron et al. (2005) categorizes them into three; behavior, cognitions, and emotions. Further, the model also stresses how leadership influences the team performance (Gill and Williams, 2008). There are also team factors such as team stability, group success and team status (Weinberg et al., 2011). The model also concentrates on cohesion task cohesion is a goal that every team members strives to achieve. On the other hand, how well people work together defines social cohesion (Weinberg et al., 2011). There are two sections of Carron’s models; group and individuals outcomes. Group outcomes refer to the team stability while individual outcomes define how individual’s performance leads to their satisfaction. Carron’s model describes team factors that relate to Miami Sharks since team factors have influence on the social cohesion. Consequently, the factors negatively influence the group outcome as evidenced in Emperor's game. Weinberg et al., (2011) outline the role of cohesion concept in team factors that greatly influence group cohesion and performance. The presence of a group ambiguity within Miami Sharks team is the major possible reason for the group poor performance. This is evident when Beamen failed to fulfill his role as a quarterback. Consequently, the whole team suffers the consequences of his actions. The coach claims Beamen states openly that he is a goddamn quarterback yet his position is the top spot (Imdb, 2011). The coach claims that Beamen failed to stereotypically conform to the roles of the quarterback. He lacked good visual recognition, quick decision-making and metal sharpness of communicating to other team players. Every individual in Miami Shark had self-oriented goals that were more ambiguous at the expense of the whole team’s goals. Further, communication breakdown existing between role receiver and the role sender could be other causes of the poor performance (Cunninham & Eys, 2007). Group norm is another vital factor in teams. According to Carron, Beauchamp and Eys (2006), group norms that refer to group’s expected behavior also have significant influence on team cohesion. Change of leadership from Cap to Beamen is a sign that Miami Sharks had unstable group norms. As a result, poor performance was inevitable. Bringing a new roles leader, Beamen into the group was a clear indication that the group norms had to change. The change goes against Jowett and Lavallee (2007) assertion that team members should always see themselves as similar to increase the likelihood of good performance due to their unity. Miami Sharks, however, went contrary to such principles and mainly focused on individual goals. Perception of a task group of cohesion has a positive relationship with the way team conforms to group roles. Considering other situations, Carron’s model of cohesion could also explain Sharks poor performance by dividing the model into two categories. The categories are task and social cohesions (Smith and Bar-Eli, 2007). Common goal that a team has is a vital aspect of task cohesion (Carron et al., 2005). However, Miami fails to work on this model because their captain mainly focuses on his individual goals, which consequently leads to negative impacts on the team performance. The strength of social relationships within a group helps in developing social cohesion (Jowett et al., 2007). Miami Sharks goes contrary to this principle and everything is about “I” rather than “We”. This is evident in their match against Emperor where the team launches attacks on their captain, an indication that the team lacks cohesive relationship during the game. A research conducted by Carron, Eys and Brays on two hundred and ninety-four Canadian athletes, supported this notion when it revealed that there is a positive correlation existing between sports teams success and cohesion. Finally, Carron’s model gives attention to group outcome, which has a direct relationship with Miami Sharks performance as a team. Team outcome gets direct effects of group cohesion. The team generally got a negative outcome because of a combination of lack of group cohesion and team factors within it. Poor performance also played a significant role in the team communication breakdown that later emerged between the players. Consequently, there was less cohesion in the group. Section Three: The Research Study It is important to add another stage to Carron’s model after group outcome if possible, group cohesion. Many studies have proved that group cohesion positively affect any group outcome (Lidor, Blumenstein & Tenenbaum, 2007). If Miami Sharks took keen attention on this principle, it would greatly benefit because the principle would ensure norm stability. The coach needs an approach and subsequent explanation of how crucial it is to incorporate team cohesion if the team is to achieve a positive outcome. In approaching the coach, an environment questionnaire of a group (GEQ) is vital (Carron, Brawley’s & Widmeyer, 2009). This questionnaire is a quantitative method essential to discovering perception of each team member, hence vital in assessing cohesion in sports teams. According to Lidor et al., (2007), this method validity and reliability is highly effective. The method is, therefore, appropriate for Miami Sharks in measuring cohesion. The effective administration of the process could be possible if even the coach also responds to the GEQ both before and after the intervention. The questionnaire provides for eighteen statements touching on individual thoughts about team cohesion. In addition, GEQ has a scale ranging from one to nine where one represents strongly agree while nine means strongly disagree (Ntoumanis & Aggelonidis, 2004). The test may be of significant benefit because the questionnaires do not bear the names of respondents. Consequently, there is likelihood that team members would respond freely to the questions without necessarily conforming to the team status. However, the questionnaire is prone to alteration, especially where specific roles and norms are essential for Miami Sharks has to improve on. Those conducting the study should administer the questionnaire at least four times during a season to achieve accurate results. That is during pre-season, early in the season, mid-season and at the end of the season (Ntoumanis, 2004). After applying the process to Miami Sharks, an intervention should follow as the first measure that involves putting team-building process in place especially if poor cohesion is among the findings in the report (Lidor, 2007). Further, the report team should conduct the t test on the two sets of data by analyzing Miami Sharks, both in pre and post match. The t Test is useful in indicating whether each individual two scores hold any significant difference (Jackson, 2010). The coach should thereafter arrange for a team-building course as well as setting team goals that favor the entire group. The most appropriate method to achieve team building is to set the goal of the day, which takes into account team responsibility for each player, as well as collective celebration of success (Jarvis 2006). Setting goals for the group have positive effects on expectance and role ambiguity (Mellalieu & Hanton, 2009). If Miami Sharks apply the goal-setting principle, the team will become more cohesive, hence positive outcome. Conclusion Poor performance of Miami Sharks has a direct relationship with Carron et al. (2005), statement that cohesion has a positive association with team success. It is evident that Sharks indeed lack cohesion where they have unstable group norms as well as giving significance to individual goals at the expense of the team goals as a whole. Individual goals are also essential. However, they should combine coherently with other team members’ goals to create a success for the entire team. If Miami Sharks take into account, team-building intervention, then it will witness future improvements in its outcome. Further failures may attract considerations such as bringing in a pool of new player and a coach who can easily stabilize norms and team roles. References Andrews, R. (2014). Coordinating for Cohesion. Public Performance & Management Review, 37(4), 705-721. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576370408 Beauchamp, M. & Eys, M. (2007). Group Dynamics in Exercise and Sport Psychology: Contemporary Themes. New York: Routledge. Cooper, C. V., Fone, D. L., & Chiaradia, A. F. (2014). Measuring the impact of spatial network layout on community social cohesion: a cross-sectional study. International Journal Of Health Geographics, 13(1), 1-26. doi:10.1186/1476-072X-13-11 Forsyth, D. R. (2010). Group dynamics. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Jarvis, M. (2006). Sport Psychology: A Student's Handbook. New York: Routledge. Jowett, S. (2007). Social psychology in sport. Champaign, Ill. [u.a.: Human Kinetics. Kerth, N. (2013). Project Retrospectives: A Handbook for Team Reviews. New York: Addison Wesley. Lavallee, D., Kremer J., Moran, A. & Williams, M. (2012). Sport Psychology: Contemporary Themes. London: Palgrave Mackmillan. Lidor, R. & Blumenstein, B. (2007). Psychology of sport training. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer Sport. Manole, A. M. (2012). Social cohesion - a post-crisis analysis. Theoretical & Applied Economics, 19(11), 127-134. Marberry, S. (2007). Predicting Individual and Team Performance Through Personality Traits, Cohesion, and Mental Models. Illinois: Proquest. Martin, L. J., Carron, A. V., Eys, M. A., & Loughead, T. (2013). Validation of the Child Sport Cohesion Questionnaire. Measurement In Physical Education & Exercise Science, 17(2), 105-119. doi:10.1080/1091367X.2013.761023 Pabayo, R., Janosz, M., Bisset, S., & Kawachi, I. (2014). School Social Fragmentation, Economic Deprivation and Social Cohesion and Adolescent Physical Inactivity: A Longitudinal Study. Plos ONE, 9(6), 1-12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099154 Sembdner, S. (2011). Success factors of virtual teams in the conflict of cross-cultural team structures. Hamburg: Diplomica-Verl. Smith, D., & Bar-Eli, M. (2007). Essential readings in sport and exercise psychology. Leeds: Human Kinetics. Spaaij, R. (2013). The Ambiguities of Sport and Community Engagement. Ethos, 21(2), 8-11. Tenenbaum, G., Eklund, R. & Kamata, A. (2009). Measurement in Sport and Exercise Psychology With Web Resource. New York: Human Kinetics. Read More