Why an Expert Team Is More than a Team of Experts: A Social-Cognitive Conceptualization of Team Coordination and Communication in Sport

Abstract

The cognitive properties and processes of teams have not been considered in sport psychology research. These properties and processes extend beyond the sum of the cognitive properties and processes of the constituent members of the team to include factors unique to teams, such as team coordination and communication. A social-cognitive conceptual framework for the study of team coordination and communication is offered, based on research on social cognition and from industrial and organizational psychology. This is followed by a discussion of coordination and communication in expert teams. In addition, an overview of the type of methods that could be used to measure aspects of team coordination and communication in sport is provided. The framework and methods afford hypothesis generation for empirical research on coordination and communication in sport teams, a means to begin examining these constructs in sport, and a theoretical base with which to reconcile the resultant data.

Expertise in soccer teams: A thematic inquiry into the role of Shared Mental Models within team chemistry

“…Such collaborations have been acknowledged as especially important in situations in which a broader knowledge foundation and different skills are necessary for efficient decision-making (Kellermanns, Floyd, Pearson, & Spencer, 2008). In their conceptual framework on expert teams, Eccles and Tenenbaum (2004) emphasized social (e.g., communication) and cognitive (e.g., shared cognitions) components to be crucial for reaching coordination in the pursuit of superior Team Chemistry 3 collective performance. Specifically, the concepts of teamwork and taskwork knowledge have been proposed to underlie team coordination (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1998;Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994;Mclntyre & Salas, 1995).…”

“…Game intelligence centered on SMM association with anticipation, creativity, knowing each other's abilities, and experience in the sport. For example, anticipation (i.e., knowing what is about to happen and which actions will be followed by teammates and opponents) was claimed important as it allows players to make decisions early and minimize their dependence on reaction time (Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004;Reimer, Park, and Hinsz, 2006;Tenenbaum & Bar-Eli, 1993).…”

“…Game intelligence centered on SMM association with anticipation, creativity, knowing each other's abilities, and experience in the sport. For example, anticipation (i.e., knowing what is about to happen and which actions will be followed by teammates and opponents) was claimed important as it allows players to make decisions early and minimize their dependence on reaction time (Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004;Reimer, Park, and Hinsz, 2006;Tenenbaum & Bar-Eli, 1993).Game philosophy included the association between SMM and (a) tactical understanding, (b) agreement between the coaches and the players, and (c) agreement among players. On that matter, the coaches postulated that despite them determining the game plan, the players are the ones who eventually implement it.…”

“…Taskwork knowledge centers on the team member's knowledge pertaining to the performance requirements of a specific role in the team (Mohammed, Ferzandi, & Hamilton, 2010). Eccles and Tenenbaum (2004) have exemplified the application of taskwork and teamwork knowledge in sports such as football, and the differences between them. Accordingly, taskwork was represented by the quarterback's ability to execute a pass that reaches its targeted destination in space and time.…”

Embodied Collaboration in Small Groups

“…Shared knowledge of the team and the task, he contends, is important for and mediates coordination and collaboration in teams. The knowledge that needs to be shared includes plans, strategies and meaning of idiosyncratic terms and verbal cues (Eccles & Tenenbaum 2004). As well as shared knowledge, for Eccles, successful groups or teams typically tend to have a decided division of labor between the different group members, often based on heterogeneous expertise in the group (Eccles & Tennenbaum 2007;Eccles & Johnson 2009;Wegner 1987).…”