Team Cohesion

"Team"--the word used constantly in the sports world. But what makes a team? What makes one team successful while others squander away entire seasons without a single win? Neither coaches nor players fully understand all the ingredients necessary for that district or conference championship team, but one goal that athletes and coaches alike desire is team cohesion.

Sport psychologist Albert Carron defines team cohesion as "a dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of goals and objectives." Once a group of people become a team, they cease being individuals for all intents and purposes of the task or contest at hand. They no longer treat one another or outsiders the same. They become one with a common goal (Cox, 1998). This is the idea of team cohesion.

As simple as the premise may sound, it is actually a very complex model. Team cohesion must be examined as a two-part philosophy. Task and social cohesion are separate parts of the same idea. Task cohesion "reflects the degree to which members of a group work together to achieve common goals. These goals are often winning a game or championship" (Sachs, 2002). "Groups high in task cohesion identify closely with formal group goals and experience success in obtaining these goals" (Cox, 1998). Social cohesion, on the other hand, "reflects the degree to which members of a team like each other and enjoy each other's company." This idea has nothing to do with the desire to win but the enjoyment of time spent together. A team high in social cohesion includes members who socialize off the playing field. A team low in social cohesion, however, involves players who workout, practice, and compete together, but go their separate ways afterward (Sachs, 2002). The importance of task versus social cohesion is a topic of great debate.

Is social cohesion necessary for success or is task cohesion enough? Of course all competitors want to win (with the exception of some recreational league teams whose members play for "the love of the game"). So this common desire puts most everyone on the same level of task cohesion. But how crucial is social cohesion to reaching that common goal? Sports psychologist Michael L. Sachs says that social cohesion is not "necessary for success, with success defined as being a winning team." He cites several examples of championship teams that suffered unbelievably difficult personal relations amongst the players. As far as these teams, Sachs writes, "there are many cases, some as famous as the New York Yankees and Oakland Athletics of the 1970s." These teams suffered difficulties between coaches and players, management and coaches, and members of the team even argued amongst themselves. However, these conflicts did not hamper the performances of these teams. Together, the Yankees and A's of the 1970s won five World Series. How did they achieve these championship seasons with such low social cohesion? "The answer . . . probably lies in task cohesion. Whatever the social conflicts that may have been present, those teams had talent and exceptionally strong task cohesion. They worked hard with one goal in mind--to win! For the most part, they left their social conflicts outside the playing field and focused all their energy on victory." The ability to counterbalance their lack of social cohesion with extremely high task cohesion brought these ball clubs great success (Sachs, 2002).

Despite the success of these World Series teams, coaches continue to strive for social cohesion amongst their players. In an ideal world, every member of every team would get along, in fact care about and appreciate one another. They would gladly share the playing field and be content whether they won or lost. However, this is not an ideal world so coaches continue their search for balanced team cohesion both for the betterment of the players individually and the team as a whole. Research positively correlates task cohesion with performance. If the team as a whole shares the goal of winning, they are more likely to achieve that goal. This correlation is stronger than that of social cohesion and winning. Liking one another does not lend to a successful competition as much as team members sharing the desire for that win. In fact, performance directly affects team cohesion more than cohesion contributes to performance. "Winning is . . . likely to generate a more cohesive team. Losing tends to exacerbate conflicts that may be simmering but remain dormant while a team is enjoying success. When a team wins, everything seems to be smoother, and it is more likely that players get along better" (Sachs, 2002). This realization may become frustrating for coaches as they trudge along trying desperately to lead their teams to cohesion, both social and task oriented. Despite the desire for their players to like and appreciate one another so that they will win, the win itself is more likely to cause this care and appreciation amongst teammates.

Once the separation and understanding of social and task cohesion is clear, we must examine the four factors that affect team cohesion as a whole. First, leadership plays an extremely critical role in this equation. According to a study by Westre and Weiss, a democratic style of coaching proves beneficial, whereas autocratic leadership hampers a team's performance and cohesiveness. This democratic form of leadership includes social support and positive feedback and/or rewards (Chu & Howe, 2001). Situational factors also affect the cohesion of a team. "Situational" refers to whether the competition is recreational or club related, whether the sport is judged on an individual or team basis, and team size. Experts agree that task cohesion is critical for the success of school and other club teams. However, social cohesion is of greater importance for recreational teams because winning is not the most important goal. Team cohesion is also important to players who participate in individually scored sports. Usually, individual points are combined for a team score at the end of the competition. For this reason, social cohesion is a must. Team or class size is extremely important in the effectiveness of a team. In general, the larger the team, the lower the cohesion. Individual factors also affect cohesiveness. Individuals' abilities to understand their own roles on the team are critical. This means that some players who may be capable of scoring many points may be forced to take roles less glorious in the public eye. They must comprehend the importance of their positions and play with pride. Individual factors also deal with each player's "perceptions of the team's ability to withstand disruptive

...