Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Sport Psychology
Social
Psychology of
Sport
Group Cohesion
Audience Effects
Leadership & Coaching
2
3
Group Cohesion
Theories
What are the indefinite qualitiesthatturna collectionof disparate individualsintothe hopefullypu...
4
(3) NORMING
The Normingphase iswhenthe teamreachesagreement
on whatthe processwill be.Everyone wantstobe part of
the new...
5
SocialLoafing
Social loafingdescribes thephenomenon that occurs when individualsexertless
effort when working as a group...
6
Aspects of Cohesion
W have so far consideredthe processbywhichateam or groupformsand develops,andhow ateamcan sufferinlo...
7
Audience Effect
Audience effectreferstoa change inperformance broughtaboutbythe presence of others.Anaudiencemaybe
passi...
8
Evaluation
Key Study – Zajonc (1969)- Cockroach Studies
Zajonchas conductedmanystudies; mostof hisworkis basedondrive an...
9
HomeAdvantage
While we mayobserve animprovementinperformance infrontof anaudience,andthe nature of the audience beyond
‘...
10
Leadership & Coaching
Leadershipiswhere anindividualleadsordirectsthe activitiesorbehaviourof a
grouptowards a sharedgo...
11
Contingency Theories
Lewinetal (1939) lookedat10 yearoldboys ina model-makingclub.Theirleaderswere autocratic,democrati...
12
What makes a successful leader?
Fieldler(1964) suggestedthatthe traitapproachalone couldneveraccountfor leadership,asle...
13
Coaching
Coachinginvolvesthe transmissionof skillsforapplicationtothe sportingsituation,andreliesonthe coach’sabilityto...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Resourcd File

139 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Resourcd File

  1. 1. Sport Psychology Social Psychology of Sport Group Cohesion Audience Effects Leadership & Coaching
  2. 2. 2
  3. 3. 3 Group Cohesion Theories What are the indefinite qualitiesthatturna collectionof disparate individualsintothe hopefullypurposeful,cohesive unitthat we call a ‘team’? Whatis the processthat bringsusto the pointwhere ourinteractionswiththe othersinthe teamare settled,where there are some positivesbetweenmembersof the team, a distinctidentityexiststhatdefines our teamas a unitandthere isa sharedunderstandingof purpose of whatthe teamis tryingtoachieve?Thisiswhat GROUP COHESION isall about,anda model putforwardbyTuckman (1965) tracesthe processof movingfromthat collectionof individualsintowhatwe recognizeasa team! Bruce Tuckman publishedhis FormingStormingNormingPerforming model in1965. He addeda fifthstage, Adjourning,inthe 1970's. A thinktankof social psychologists,of whichTuckmanwasa part,was lookingatsmall groups and organizational behaviouratthe navel Medical ResearchInstitute,Bethesda,MarylandUSA.Altmanhadbeencollectingarticleson groupdevelopmentandgave themtoTuckman to see if anypatternsemerged.Tuckman(1965) reportedidentifying fourstages:orientation/testing/dependence,conflict,groupcohesion,functional role-relatedness.Forthese he evolved the terms:‘forming’,‘storming’,‘norming’and‘performing’,andproposedhisstage theoryof groupdevelopment. (1) FORMING In the Formingstage,teammembersare introduced.They cautiouslyexplore the boundariesof acceptablegroup behaviour.Thisisastage of transitionfromindividual to memberstatus,andof testingthe leader'sguidance both formallyandinformally. Formingincludes:  Excitement,anticipation,andoptimism  Suspicionandanxietyaboutthe job  Definingthe tasksandhowtheywill be accomplished  Determiningacceptable groupbehaviour  Decidingwhatinformationneedstobe gathered  Long discussionsaboutideasandissues,andfor some members,impatiencewiththesediscussions  Difficultyinidentifyingsome of the relevant problems Because there issomuch goingon to distractmembers' attentioninthe beginning,the teamaccomplisheslittle,if anything,thatconcernsitsaims.Thisis perfectlynormal. (2) STORMING In the Stormingphase membershave theirownideasasto how the processshouldlook,andpersonal agendasare rampant.Stormingisprobablythe mostdifficultstage for the team. Theybegintorealise the tasksare differentand more difficultthantheyfirstthought.Theybecome impatientaboutthe lackof progressand argue aboutwhat actionsthe team shouldtake.Theytryto impose their personal ideasandresistworkinginpartnershipwithmost of the otherteammembers. Stormingincludes:  Resistingthe tasks  Resistingqualityimprovementapproaches suggestedbyothermembers  Arguingamongmembersevenwhentheyagree on the real issues  Defensiveness,competition,andchoosingsides  Establishingunrealisticaimsandobjectives  Divisions,increasedtension,andjealousy Thismeansmembershave little energytospendon progressingtowardsthe projectaimsandobjectives,but they ARE beginningtounderstandone another.
  4. 4. 4 (3) NORMING The Normingphase iswhenthe teamreachesagreement on whatthe processwill be.Everyone wantstobe part of the newagreement.Membersare enthusiasticandmay be temptedtogo beyondthe original aimsandobjectives. Duringthisstage,membersresolve theirdifferences,they accept the team,teamgroundrules,theirrolesinthe team,and the individualityof fellow members.Emotional conflictisreducedaspreviouslycompetitiverelationships become more cooperative. Normingincludes:  An abilitytoexpresscriticismconstructively  Acceptance of membershipinthe team  An attempttoachieve harmonybyavoiding conflict  More friendliness,confidingineachother,and sharingof personal problems  A sense of teamcohesion,spirit,andgoals  Establishingandmaintainingteamgroundrules and boundaries As teammembersbegintoworkouttheirdifferences, theynowhave more time and energytospendonthe project. (4) PERFORMING The team has now settledintoitsrelationshipsand expectations.Theycanbeginperformingbyidentifyingand solvingproblems,andchoosingandimplementing changes.Atlast teammembershave discoveredand acceptedeachother'sstrengthsandweakness,and learnedwhattheirrolesare. Performingincludes:  Membershave insightsintopersonal andgroup processes,andbetterunderstandingof each other'sstrengthsandweakness  Constructive self-change  Abilitytopreventorworkthroughgroupproblems  Close attachmenttothe team The team isnow an effective andefficientunit.Youcantell whenyourteamhas reachedthisstage because youstart gettinga lotof workdone!!!! (5) ADJOURNING Tuckman's fifthstage,Adjourning,isthe break-upof the group,whentheirtaskiscompletedsuccessfully,everyonecan move onto newthings,feelinggoodaboutwhat'sbeenachieved. Recognitionof,andsensitivityto,people'sfeelingsin the adjourningstage isextremelyimportantparticularlyif membersof the grouphave beencloselybondedastheymay feel asense of insecurityorthreatfromthischange.These feelingsare perfectlynormal forpeoplewhohave been involvedinastronglybondednetworkof like-mindedindividuals. Evaluation
  5. 5. 5 SocialLoafing Social loafingdescribes thephenomenon that occurs when individualsexertless effort when working as a group than when working independently. Research indicates thatthere is some degree of social loafingwithin every group, whether high-functioningor dysfunctional. Evaluation Key Study Latane, B., Williams,K.,& Harkins,S. (1979).Many Hands Make Light The Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing. Experiment 1 Method – Latane et al,wanted to replicateRingleman’s work conceptually.On eight occasions,6 undergraduatemales studying introductory psychology from Ohio State University were invited to help the experimenter’s judge how much noisepeople make i n the social settings.The participants wereasked to judge cheering and applause,and also to judgehow loud these seem to those who hear them. The participants wereasked to: (1) Clap or cheer as loudly as possiblefor 5 seconds (2) Judge noises.Both performers and observers were asked to guess how much noisehad been produced. After some practicethere 36 trialsof yellingand 36 trials of clappingalone,in pairsand in groups of 4 and 6. The order of these trials was counterbalanced.Measures were taken by a General Radio Sound Level Meter at 4m form each performer. Results  The noiseproduced did not grow in proportion to the number of people. The average sound pressuregenerated per person decreased with increasinggroup size(p<0.001).  Two-person groups performed at only 71% of the sum of their individual capacity  Four persons groups at 51%  Six person groups at 40% Conclusion As in pullingropes in the Ringleman’s study, it appears that when itcomes to clappingand shoutingmany hands do, in fact make light work! Evaluation
  6. 6. 6 Aspects of Cohesion W have so far consideredthe processbywhichateam or groupformsand develops,andhow ateamcan sufferinlosso overall performance.However,the real questionishow togetherthatgroupis andhow unitedthe teamis.Groupsare social unitsandcohesionis the glue thatbondsthemtogether.Cohesionisthe constructwhichrepresentsthatstrength of the social bondwithinthe group.Groupcohesion hasbeenexploredbyCarron& Bennet(1977) and Carron& Chellandurai (1981& 1982) Carron (1982) – CohesivenessinSportsGroups Carron broke hisperceptionsof cohesioninsportintofourareas  The theoretical framework  Applicationof sport  Implicationsandlimitations  Future directions General Theoretical Perspective Thisderivesfromthe workof Festingeret al (1963), whoproposedthatcohesionwasat leastbi- dimensional. Theysaidthat to understandgroupdynamicsandhow groupsbindtogether,itwasnecessarytolookat (a) The sourcesof rewards (b) The meansto achievingthe rewards These notionshave beendevelopedtobe considered as two components,namelysocial cohesionandtask cohesion. Sports Research Perspective While theoryacknowledgesthatthere are two dimensionstogroupcohesiveness,cohesionhasbeen operationallydefinedasone general dimension. E.g. Martenset al’ssport cohesiveness questionnaire measuressevenaspectsof cohesivenessincludingthe degree of friendshiporinterpersonal attractionamong groupmembers,the sense of belonging,andthe level of teamworkperceivedtobe presentinthe group.The emphasisonsocial cohesiontypifiesthe measuresthat are commonlyused. Limitations Issuesof validityprevail,byemphasizing social cohesion.  Otherfactors thatinduce cohesivenessare overlooked,suchasthe goalsand objectives relatingtoperformance.  Alsogroupsthat have lowlevel attractionand negative affectdonotnecessarilyleadtobreakup or evendisruption.  Attractionisnot neededforgroupstoform, formationcan occur because peopleshare similar valuesortheycan see a clear goal-path.  There isno agreedsingle,general conceptof cohesiveness.  Cohesivenessisbasedonaggregationof group scores,valuescanbe skewed. Future Directions Carron has broughttogethervariouspartsof an overarchingsystemfordevelopingcohesivenessin sportsteams.
  7. 7. 7 Audience Effect Audience effectreferstoa change inperformance broughtaboutbythe presence of others.Anaudiencemaybe passive,asinyourfamilywatchingyoupractice at home,or a stadiumfull of spectators.Alternativelytheymaybe co- acting,that is,takingpart inthe activityeithercompetitivelyorco-operatively. Triplett(1898) – The first Social,Sport PsychologyExperiment  Performedthe earliestexperimentsoncyclistsin cyclingtrials underthree conditions.  Condition1 – cyclistswere toldtorace individually againstthe clock.  Condition2 – Theywere toldto race together,but not compete  Condition3 –Theywere sentoff togetherand askedto compete. The fastesttime wasrecordedfor the competinggroup,but importantlythe noncompetinggroupwassignificantlyfaster than the individuals Evaluation  Reliability– because the studyisdated,itis difficulttoascertainwhetherrigorous experimental conditionswere used.  Generalisability–All cyclists,butall sports involve competitiveness.Mayonlyapplyto individualsports,androcentric.  Application– Good,athletescouldtrain togetherasthiswouldenhance performance Key Study – Cottrell et al (1968) – The Effectsof an Audience Versusthe Effectsof the ‘Mere Presence’ofothers. Aim- Cottrell aimedtoshowthatthe studybyZajonc (the nextone afterthis) notionof the mere presenceof an audience,overlookedthe impactfromthataudience.He therefore setouttocompare a taskcarriedout witha blindfoldedaudience (merepresence)withone carriedoutwithanon-blindfoldedaudience. Sample – A total of 45 introductorypsychologyuniversitystudentsperformedaspseudo-recognitiontask;  15 performedthe tasksalone.  15 before anbefore anaudience of twopassive spectators  15 before anaudience of twowhowere notspectatorsand were blindfolded. Apparatus and Materials– The stimuli were tennonsense words –AFWORBU,BIWONJI,CIVADRA,JTEVKANI, LOKANTA,MECBURI, NANSOMA,PARITAF,SARIDIKandZABDLON.The participantswere show the wordsona4x6 inchphotoof each word.Theywere thentestedusing2x2 inchslidesof eachwordon a projectorcalleda TACHISTOSCOPE(a typeof projectorthatshowsan imagefora specific but adjustableperiod time).A stopwatchwas usedto time the stagesof the experiment. Procedure - Words were practiced andpseudo-recognitiontrialswerestarted.  Subjectswere tolditwasa studyof how people learnaforeignlanguage.Hence the strange words.  The numberof responsesinthe pseudo-recognitiontrialswasrecorded,givingthe dependentvariable  There were three conditionsof the independentvariable o In the alone condition- the subjectwasalone inthe room duringtesting. o In the audience condition–twoconfederatesposingasfellow introductorypsychologystudents arrivedinthe experimental room earlyforasupposedcolour-perceptionexperiment.Theywere allowedtowatchthe presentexperimentwhile waitingfortheirandthusbecame anaudience. o The mere presence condition- wasthe same as the audience condition,exceptthe confederates were askedtoput on blindfoldsinpreparationfortheir(alleged) forthcomingexperiment. Resultsand Conclusions As can be seenformthe figure below,mere presenceandalone produce asimilarlevel of response,butthe audience conditionstandsoutas having a significantlygreaternumberof responses.Thissuggeststhatmere presence,as Zajoncsuggested,isnotsufficienttoaffectperformance, butthe audience needstobe involved.Active oratleast alert.The findingsare alsosuggestingthatmere presencedoesinfactincrease the individual’sgeneral drive. On the pseudo-recognitiontrails the presence of anaudience enhancedthe emissionof dominantresponses(the response thatsupersedesthe otherpossible responses).However,the mere presence of otherpersonsof the same statusand in the same physical proximityasthe audience didnotenhance the emissionof dominantresponses.
  8. 8. 8 Evaluation Key Study – Zajonc (1969)- Cockroach Studies Zajonchas conductedmanystudies; mostof hisworkis basedondrive andarousal.He claimedthatan audience producesarousal ina performer.Thisheightensthe dominant response.Withasimple,familiarorwell learnedtask, thisincrease inarousal will heightenperformance(explainingsocial facilitation).Withanovel,unfamiliarorcomplex task,thisincrease inarousal will impair/diminishperformance (explaining social inhibition) Zajoncpresentedsome intriguingevidence insupportof histheory.He turnedhisattentiontocockroaches,andthe fact that theyare repelledbylight.Zajoncsetupa cockroach runin whichhe placeda lightat one end. Participants – 72 adultfemale cockroaches. 1. The alone condition- Whenthe lightwas turnedon,the cockroach ran away fromthe lightas quicklyas possible.Zajonctimeshowlongittool toreach the endof the run. He calculatesan average of tentrials. 2. Co-actingCondition– He placedtwocockroachesinthe run, and againtimedhow quickly theyrantothe end. He calculatedthe average of tentrials. 3. Non-coactingaudience condition- Zajoncbuiltacockroachgrandstand.Thiswas Perspex housingwith compartmentsjustlarge enoughtofitone cockroach,thoughnot large enoughforthemto turn around.This was placedbythe side of the run and so formedanon-coactingaudience of cockroaches.Again,Zajoncplaced a cockroach in the run.And timedhow quicklyitranthe run, calculatinganaverage of tentrails. 4. The three conditionsabove were repeatedusingacockroach maze insteadof a cockroach run. Thiswas complex asopposedtoa simple task,hence affectingthe dominantresponse. Results- Taking the lone cockroachin a cockroach run as a benchmark,the cockroachesinfrontof the grandstand (the non-coactingaudience) werefaster,whilethe coactingcockroaches,runningagainsteachother,ranfaster! Takingthe lone cockroach ina cockroachmaze as a benchmark,the cockroachesinfrontof the grandstand(the non- coacting audience) wereslower,while the coactingcockroaches,runningagainsteachother,ranthe slowest. Conclusions –The firstthingZajonc suggest isthatthe presence of otherincreasesarousal.Whena task issimple, familiarorwell learned,thisarousal enhances‘goodperformance,whichisthe dominantresponseinthisinstance. Whena task is novel,complex orunfamiliar,itenhancespoorperformance ,whichisthe dominantresponseinthis instance. The cockroachrun demonstratesthe formerandthe cockroachmaze the latter. Figure 1 Graph to show the level of response in the alone, mere presence and audience conditions Graph to show the level of response in the alone, mere presence and audience conditions Diagram showing layout of the ‘Cockroach run’. Zajonc et al (1969)
  9. 9. 9 HomeAdvantage While we mayobserve animprovementinperformance infrontof anaudience,andthe nature of the audience beyond ‘mere presence’maybe important, we mayalsoobserve the phenomenonwhereby,tovaryingdegrees,there isan advantage inplaying‘athome’infrontof youraudience of spectators.Whetherornotthisobservationcanbe supportedbydocumentedevidence and,if sowhythisshouldbe,wasstudiedbySchwartzandBarsky(1977) Evaluation Validity– the studyissupportedbylotsof studiesthathighlightthe effectsof anaudience Generalisability–Poor, difficulttoextrapolate from cockroaches! Reductionist– The studyhighlightsthatthe audience effectisbiological orinnate –not really…..probablymore social. Application– Good– can helpimprove sportsperformance bytrainingathletesinfrontof an audience Key Study – Schwartz & Barsky (1977) – Home Advantage. Method-  Included 1880 major league baseball games played in 1971.This represents 97% of all games played that year in the American and National Leagues.  Also recorded were home team outcomes for all 182 games played in 1971 in the professional American and National Football conferences.  Same information was gathered from 910 games played by 182 collegefootball teams in 1971.  Data gathered from 542 played in both divisionson the National Hockey League in he 1971/72 season – this includes 87% of all the games played that year.  1485 collegebasketball games played by the Philadelphia area Big5 teams over a 16 year period (1952-66) Results –  Home victories exceed 50% of all games won  The advantage of playingathome differs from one sportto another. SPORT (percentage of games won by the home team in baseball, football and hockey) FOOTBALL BASEBALL PROFESSIONAL COLLEGE HOCKEY Home Team Outcome 1971 1971 1971 1971-72 WIN 53 55 59 53 LOSE 47 41 40 30 TIE 4 1 17 TOTAL 100 100 100 100  The home advantageis atits most decisivein the indoor arenas of basketball and icehockey.  It is leastdecisivein baseball,where the home team won 53%.  The success athome seems largely attributableto offensive(attacking) play rather than better defensive play.In addition,a hostilecrowd can bringabout deterioration in the play of the away team rather than improve the performance of the home team, suggestingthat an away disadvantagemay accountfor the home advantage.  The Arousal theory goes a longway to explainingthefindings.The home effect is most pronounced when a strongteam hosts a weak team; the damage is most pronounced for the away team when the task is difficult,thatis playingaway for a strong team. Ironically therefore, successful performanceis affected not only by an athlete’s skill and abilities but also the number an enthusiasmf their well-wishers. Conclusions  Home advantageis most apparent in the indoor sports of ice hockey and basketball,leastso in the outdoor sports of baseball and football.  The major factor in home advantagefor all sports is moreeffective offensive play rather than defensive action.  Playingathome or away is as stronga correlateof a team’s performance as is the quality of its players.  Home advantageis almosttotally independent of visitor fatigueand lack of familiarity with the home playingarea.  Away disadvantageis often as significantan explanation as homeadvantage. This may also be explained by arousal theory.
  10. 10. 10 Leadership & Coaching Leadershipiswhere anindividualleadsordirectsthe activitiesorbehaviourof a grouptowards a sharedgoal.In the sportssettingthiscan be the leadershipof an organization,teamorclub.Coachinginvolvesaveryspecifictype of leadership wherebyone personencouragesthe developmentof skillsinindividualsandina team. Trait and Type Theories Evaluation Key Study- Stogdill (1948)- Great Man Theory An initial question when considering leadership is whether leaders are born or made. The notion that some people are born with the qualities essential to leadership is the trait approach. Know as the ‘Great Man’ Theory. Many researchers have suggested and studied this approach to explain leadership. An attempt is made here to consider the characteristics of leaders . Stogdill researched many articles on leadership and the trait approach and extracted the relevant data in his quest to find consistency and patterns. Data was obtained from various groups by various methods, giving a broad range of social composition and of different methodologies. Methodology – 1. Observation and time sampling of behaviour in group situations –The behaviour of two or more individualsis observed in situations which permit the emergence of leaders. 2. Choice of associates (voting, naming, ranking, sociometrics) – Members of a group are asked to name the person whom they would prefer as a leader, possibly describing the characteristics which make them a desirable leader. 3. Nomination by qualified observer- Leaders are named by those in a formal position to identify group leaders such as teachers, club leaders, or other adult observers. 4. Selection of person occupying position of leadership – Leadership is regarded as the same as holding office or an appointed position of responsibility. 5. Analysis of biographical and case history data- most of these studies were based on the analysis of biographical data. 6. The listing of traits considered essential to leadership- different groups, such as business executives and members of the professions, were asked to list the traits which they believed essential to leadership. 7. Supplementary aspects – various methods have been employed to determine the traits associated with leadership. Most frequently used are tests of intelligence and personality but we also find questionnaires, rating scales and interviews. Results  Chronological Age – Leaders are found to be younger in 6 studies and older in 10 studies – otherwise age has no effect.  Height – A weak positive correlation was found to be taller in 9 studies and 2 studies they were shorter. (Gandhi, Hitler)  Weight – A weak positive correlation was found between weight and leadership – leaders are heavier (7 studies)  Physique, energy, health – Leaders have superior physique –however no consistent relationship.  Appearance- some evidence – leaders present a better appearance  Fluency of speech- Most consistently by leaders- ‘confident tone of voice’ or ‘pleasant voice’ , ‘talkativeness’.  Intelligence- leaders are brighter.  Scholarship and Knowledge- with a high degree of uniformity leaders are found to better grades than non-leaders and have better knowledge of how to get things done. Conclusion – Stogdill’s research is a good example of many studies that have been conducted into identifying which traits typify the quality o ‘leader’. However, there is little consistency to suggest that a leader in one situation will inevitably be a good leader in a different situation.This lack of a consistentset of qualities to identify a good leader in all situations has always render ed the ‘GREAT LEADER’ approach short on credibility.
  11. 11. 11 Contingency Theories Lewinetal (1939) lookedat10 yearoldboys ina model-makingclub.Theirleaderswere autocratic,democraticor laissez-faire.The groupwiththe autocraticleaderproducedthe most, butproductiondeclinedandconflictensuedwhen the leaderleftthe room.The groupwiththe democraticleaderproducedalittle lessthatthe autocraticgroup,but continuedproductivelywhenthe leaderwasnotpresent.The laissez-fairegroupexperiencedlow productionlevelsand much more conflict thanthe othergroups.The leaderof the groupchangedon a 5 weeklybasisandwhattheyfound was thatthe behaviourof the groupchangedtoo. Evaluation
  12. 12. 12 What makes a successful leader? Fieldler(1964) suggestedthatthe traitapproachalone couldneveraccountfor leadership,asleadershipwascontingent (dependent) uponanumberof factors.He identifiedleadersasperson-orientatedortaskorientated,asmeasuredby howwell they goton withtheir‘leastpreferredco-worker’.Chellandurai (1978)effectivelyappliedthistosport. Key Study – Chelladurai (1978) Multi-Dimensional Model of Leadership. Thispiece of researchisattemptto identifywhat these contingenciesare andhow theyinteractto explainthe questionof whatmakesa goodleaderinsport.Chelladurai (1978) identifiesthree possible leaderbehaviours,as follows. PrescribedLeaderBehaviour – confirmsandconformstothe normsand expectationsof the organisationinwhich leadershipisbeingexamined.Itisbehaviourthatisprescribesbythe authorityof the institution.E.g ‘Thecaptain of the England cricket teamsits on theBoard of selectors,and his role requires him to turn up when the board meets. This situation determinesthis behaviour. PreferredLeaderBehaviour- is whatthe team memberswouldchoose theirleaderthave.Itmay alsomean preferredasinpreferable,asa teamwhose confidencewaslow wouldneedaleaderwhowaspraising,encouraging and gave themsome self-belief.Therefore the teammembers’preferencesorneedsdetermine thisbehaviour, althoughthe situationcouldhave animpactas well. Actual Leader Behaviour- istangible behaviourthatthe leaderreallydisplays,irrespective of the prescribedor preferredbehaviour.Thisisdeterminedbythe leader’straitsandinnate characteristics. Chelladurai suggeststhatdifferenttypesof leaderbehaviourdisplayedtogethershouldbe calledcongruence.  Whenprescribed,actual andpreferred leadershipare all incongruentthenalaissez-faire outcome should ensue. (sowhennoqualitiesare met,theyshouldall justgetonwithit)  Whenprescribedandpreferredleadershipare congruentbutthe leader’sactual behaviourisincongruentto these, thenthe removal of the leaderisonthe card (leadercan’tlead…..thentime togo)  Whenpreferredleadershipiscongruentwithactual leadershipbutthe prescribedleadershipbehaviouris incongruent,the teamwill experience satisfactionbutperformance maysuffer.  Whenprescribedleadershipiscongruentwithactual leadershipbutthe preferredleadershipbehaviouris incongruenttothese,thensuccessful performance islikelybutatthe expense of teamsatisfaction.  Onlywhenall three are congruentwill idealperformance andsatisfactionbe promoted. Prescribed Actual Preferred Laissez-faire Prescribed+Preferred Actual Removal of leader Actual + Preferred Prescribed Team Satisfaction Actual + Prescribed Preferred Successful performance Prescribed +Actual + Preferred Ideal Performance andsatisfaction Evaluation
  13. 13. 13 Coaching Coachinginvolvesthe transmissionof skillsforapplicationtothe sportingsituation,andreliesonthe coach’sabilityto effectivelyimpactthe knowledgenecessaryforsuccessful participation. ,, Key Study – Smith et al (1977)Coach Effectiveness Training Baseball coaches in a children’s leaguefromSeattle, USA engaged in a pre-season trainingprogramme. Success was defined as being ableto relate effectively rather than solely improvein a win/loss count. The programme was based on previously identified cognitive-behavioural guidelines and measured usingthe 12-category coachingbehaviour assessmentsystem (CBAS). The effects of the trainingprogramme on coach behaviours and player perceptions,attitudes and self-esteem were assessed. The hypothesis was that differences in attitudes towards trained versus untrained coaches would be most pronounced for children with low self-esteem. Participants –  31 Seattle-area male Little League Baseball coaches –from three leagues, involved at a major level - 10-12 year olds and senior level – 13-15 year olds.  18 of the participants were in the experimental condition and attended the trainingsession  13 of the participants were in the control condition,so they had no treatment.  The mean ages of the coaches was 36 years with an average of 8 years experience. The training sessions  Lasted for 2 hours  Participantswere presented with guidelines developed from previous research.  The goal of the guidelines was to increasepositiveinteractionsbetween coach and players and team mates and reduce fear of failure.  The guidelines were designed to increasethe coaches awareness of their own behaviour,and focus attention on the guidelines.  Behavioural feedback was provided in terms of the 12 behavioural categories in the coachingand behavioural assessmentsystem (CBAS).  The coaches were observed duringthe first2 weeks of the season by trained coders. Evaluation Procedures  Coaches from the experimental group and he control group were compared in terms of observed behaviours (observed by 16 undergraduates trained for 4 weeks, by means of the CBAS), players’perceptions,players’attitudes to themselves, the coaches,team-mates and the sport. Self esteem was also assessed. Results Comparability of experimental and control coaches  On player-perceived behaviours,there were no significantdifferences in any of the 12 behaviour categories.  A total of 26,412 behaviours were coded duringgame observations. Self-esteem changes  The trainer group increased their self esteem score from 51 to 52.5, whereas the control group’s self esteem scorefell from 52 to 50.7  The greatest change in attitudes was found in those whose self-esteem was low. Team Records  Mean winningfor trained coaches was 54.5%. Control group was 44.7%. Conclusions  The results of the present study indicatethat the experimental trainingprogramme exerted a significantand positive influenceon coachingbehaviours,player-perceived behaviours and children’s attitudes to their coaches,team-mates and other aspects of athletics performance. A positivechange was also observed in children who played for the trained coaches. Reactive Behaviours Desirable performances Positive reinforcement Non-reinforcement Mistakes/Errors Mistake contingent encouragement Mistake contingent technical Instructions Punishment Punitive Ignoring mistakes Misbehaviours Keeping control Spontaneous behaviours Game-related General technical instruction General encouragement Organization Game-irrelevant General communication

×