Team Structure and Success as Related to Cohesiveness and Leadership

Cohesion and Performance in Groups: A Meta-Analytic Clarification of Construct Relations.

“…Examples of Studies That Were Multiply Coded Under the Behavior-Outcome and Effectiveness-Efficiency Categories Effectiveness Efficiency Behavior Total time spent engaging in work-related activities (Bakeman & Helmreich, 1975); the number of action proposals in a group decision-making task (Fodor & Smith, 1982); overall evaluation of behaviors exhibited in an oral presentation (Keyton & Springston, 1990) Number of ideas generated in twelve minutes for brainstorming-task (Cohen et al, 1960); summing and extending invoices in a seven minute period (Wong, 1992); number of product solution ideas, weighted by ratings of creativity (Eisenberg, 2001) Outcome Win-loss ratio for athletic teams (Bird, 1977;Carron & Ball, 1977); overall score on Moon Survival Task (Carpenter & Radhakrishnan, 2002); rank or overall grade on a class project or business simulation (Colarelli & Boos, 1992;Neal, 1997) Points gained in a fifteen minute period on a cargo-loading simulation (Burchfield, 1997); supervisory rating of units produced and errors made (Gekoski, 1952); total monthly sales, divided by number of employees (George & Bettenhausen, 1990) Appendix A Individual sales performance (that was then aggregated to the group level), solving of individual puzzles, and collegiate wrestling competitions Sequential Clerical work that proceeded in stages and group card-sorting tasks (in which one member follows the same person each time) Reciprocal Surveying teams, group puzzle tasks (in which members interact with other group members one at a time to complete the task), and class projects conducted over e-mail (i.e., members interact with other members, but there is no simultaneous interaction) Intensive Decision-making tasks, group puzzle tasks (in which members must interact with the other team members simultaneously to complete the puzzle), business simulations, and class group projects.…”

Is Internal Communication Important for Sport Commitment

“…This is supported by past research that advocates that effective communication with peers or team members greatly influences cohesion (P. Sullivan & Feltz, 2003) and cohesion is a strong force that keeps players committed to a team (Bird, 1977; Eys et al, 2009; Rosenfeld and Gilbert, 1988). Moreover, coach communication in sports organization hold great importance as it can enhance player’s morale, promote transparency, and reduce attrition (Bakar & Mustaffa, 2008; Eys et al, 2009; Fraser-Thomas et al, 2008; Turman, 2008).…”

Team conflict and effectiveness in competitive environments

“…In the past, researchers found that various factors, such as the nature of the task (Landers & Lueshen, 1974) and the nature of the leader-subordinate relationship (Bird, 1977) influence team cohesion. Carron and Chelladurai (1981) concluded that discrepancies (e.g., conflict) between athletes, coaches, and team members in task motivation were one of the most important factors contributing to perceptions of team cohesion.…”