Introduction
The elements of the case study that will be discussed in this paper will involve assessing the leadership skills of the coach for the female volleyball team as well as the team cohesion that exists in the volleyball team. According to the case study, the volleyball team had successful runs before the coach assumed his responsibilities of coaching the team. The team also demonstrated a lack of cohesiveness during their training sessions as they did not communicate with each other during and after the training sessions. This together with the high expectations that the coach had placed on the team and his lack of support contributed to a slump in their overall performance.
According to Loughead and Carron (2004), training or exercise programs are meant to yield satisfaction amongst the participants of the program. If the players of a team are satisfied with the training program, they are more likely to continue with the program as long as they can be able to derive some satisfaction from it. Training programs like any other organizational programs require some form of cohesiveness and leadership for them to be a form of satisfaction to the participants. They also require the incorporation of social aspects where the participants can be able to demonstrate their cohesiveness through the communication of the groups various participants (Loughead & Carron, 2004).
Group Cohesion and the Input Throughput Output Model
Group cohesion is a sense of belonging, inclusion and solidarity that an individual has when they are part of a group or team. Group cohesion is usually a result of individual forces that drive the members of a group to want to remain together. Cohesiveness refers to a condition that the members of a group or team players experience in the form of warmth and comfort which provides them with a sense of belonging and acceptance (Hechter & Home, 2009). Despite the fact that group cohesion develops during the initial stages of the group, it becomes an important aspect during the working stage of the group. For sporting teams such as the volleyball squad, group cohesion is an important aspect because it ensures that the team is able to perform its activities in a cohesive manner, allowing the individual players to achieve the team’s overall goals (Thye & Lawler, 2002).
Group cohesion is not a fixed aspect in groups as it fluctuates with the lifecycle of the group or team depending on the interactions that exist amongst the group’s members. With relation to the case study, the volleyball team lacks any cohesion as there are no interactions amongst the players during and after the training sessions (Forsyth, 2010). The team’s players are unable to express themselves and relay their volleyball experiences with the other team member which creates an impediment to the establishment of cohesiveness in the volleyball team. The lack of willingness on the part of the players to express the persistent reactions of their playing experiences with their team members has also contributed to poor cohesiveness in the team (Corey, 2008).
Group cohesion as explained by Yalom (2005) is not a tool that can be used to increase effectiveness within a group but it is necessary in teams and groups to ensure that the therapeutic nature of the players has been addresses enabling them to concentrate on the game. Cohesion ensures that there is action-oriented behaviour on the part of the group’s members who are then able to perform risk taking and confrontational behaviour that will ensure the success of the group. Yalom and Leszcz (2005) also maintain the view that group cohesion is a strong determinant of a positive group outcome in the group’s activities. The lack of cohesiveness being experienced by the volleyball team has contributed to negative outcomes where the performance of the group has deteriorated in the recent games it has participated in. One model of group cohesion that can be used to explain the lack of cohesiveness in the volleyball team is the input-throughput-output model for organizational effectiveness (Corey et al, 2010).
This model incorporates the use of inputs, throughputs and outputs to determine whether there is any cohesiveness in a team or group. The inputs that are used within the model include human resources (employees or team players), financial resources, technology and equipment (Tubbs, 2007). Throughputs that are used in the model include information systems, allocation, human resource management, scanning of the external environment and control systems. The outputs that are included in the model include effective control of the environment, intellectual development, productivity, survival and growth, goals and objectives, employee development and group cohesion (Schneider et al, 2005).
According to this model, a team’s performance is measured by functional factors such as the quality of work, interpersonal factors, group cohesiveness and individual member satisfaction within the group. The input-throughput-output model proposes that the various characteristics of a team’s members serve as the inputs while the throughputs are determined by the development of the team. The outputs of the model are determined by the specific determinants of the team’s performance (Beyerlein et al, 2002). By demonstrating the various inputs of a team’s members and how these inputs affect the throughputs and outputs of the model, group cohesion can be achieved within groups if the necessary skills that are needed to foster cohesion have been maintained through the use of the model (Flin et al, 2008). A major weakness of the input-throughput-output model is that certain relationships which might exist within the model might not support each other. For example the relationship between output and financial performance cannot be supported within the model (Vermeulen et al, 2003).
Leadership and Transformational Leadership Theory
Leadership is described as the process of influencing people to achieve a particular goal or objective within an organization or social group. The leader of the group is usually the one who influences group members to accomplish a common task within the group. Leadership has also been defined as a way of creating activities that will enable people to contribute for the overall success of activities (Northouse, 2010). The theories of leadership such as the trait theories, transformational theories, functional theories and behavioural theories describe leadership as the ability to organize a group of people so that they can be able to achieve a common goal (Avolio et al, 2003).
Leadership is an important aspect in groups and teams as leaders provide a sense of direction to the group’s members. Teams or groups that have well established leadership practices are characterised by having an awareness of the individual needs of the members and they also have good interpersonal relationships within the group or team. They are also characterised to be more effective in performing tasks and they have a common purpose because the members have a sense of accomplishment. Leaders are the people who influence a group of people to achieve a common task through the use of their own personal qualities which might include confidence, good communication skills and good interpersonal qualities (Bass & Bass, 2008).
Good leadership and leaders are important in organizational groups as well as in other groups that exist in the real world because they motivate and inspire their team members to perform their tasks so that they can achieve the group’s objectives and goals. Good leadership within a team ensures that the performance of the team’s members is positive and that they are able to produce the required results when the leader requires them to (Giuliani & Kurson, 2005). The most common determinant of good leadership is the ability of the leader to motivate his team members to perform their activities effectively and efficiently. Good leaders are able to accomplish this by motivating and inspiring their team members to perform to the best of their abilities by setting performance expectations and also providing intellectual stimulation to the players (Arvey et al, 2006). In the case of the volleyball team, the coach has poor leadership skills which have affected the performance of the team.
The transformational leadership theory which is also known as transactional leadership involves leaders participating in social exchanges that are meant to transform the behaviour of the team members to ensure that common tasks can be achieved within the team. Politicians are common examples of individuals who practice transformational leadership as they engage in social exchanges that are meant to seek more votes from their constituents or gain campaign contributions. According to Bass and Riggio (2006),”Transformational leaders stimulate and inspire their followers to achieve extraordinary outcomes as they develop their own leadership capacities” (P, 3). Research evidence has showed that transformational leadership can be used to motivate followers to exceed the expected performance outcomes that were needed for the task (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The volleyball coach is not a transformational leader as he has placed very high expectations on his team without supporting them. He also demands a lot from his players who are not inspired and motivated to perform.
Results of the Case Study
A group environment questionnaire was administered to the 20 squad female volleyball team as they were travelling for a game. A transformational leadership inventory for sport questionnaire and a collective efficacy inventory were also administered to the team. According to the results of the transformational leadership inventory which measured the leadership, cohesion and collective efficacy that exists within the team, the team members highlighted in the questionnaire the that there was no inspirational motivation within the team and there was a lack of fostering and acceptance of group goals on the part of the coach. Individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, appropriate role modelling and high performance expectations were also lacking within the volleyball team (Callow et al, 2009).
The above aspects which are vital elements for effective leaders and leadership in managing sporting teams have not been reflected by the volleyball coach when managing his players. According to the results, the lack of motivation, acceptance, performance expectations, role modelling and intellectual stimulation have contributed greatly to the volleyball team’s dismal performance in the recent times. The results of the questionnaire also showed that the coach did not provide any contingent rewards to the players who had performed well during the team’s games. The standard deviation for appropriate role modelling had the lowest ranking of 0.20 which showed that it was the least exercised activity within the team (Callow et al, 2009).
Other leadership skills that ranked poorly within the team were those of high performance expectations and intellectual stimulation which had a standard deviation of 0.3. This showed that the team’s coach did not provide any role modelling for his players and he had also failed to place any performance expectations on his players that would stimulate and motivate them to perform well. The standard deviation for intellectual motivation was also low with a ranking of 0.34 which demonstrated that the team’s players were not motivated to perform well because of the lack of high performance expectations, intellectual stimulation and appropriate role modelling. In terms of task cohesion, majority of the players responded that there were poor levels of task cohesion within the team. This was further evidenced by a lack of proper communication amongst the team players during and after the training sessions. 0.55 responded that there was poor task cohesion by selecting 1 on the cohesion scale while 0.30 of the players selected 7 on the cohesion scale.
With regards to social cohesion, 0.64 of the players selected 1 on the cohesions scale showing that social cohesion was poor within the team while 0.44 selected 6 on the cohesion scale. In terms of collective efficacy, majority of the players selected 6 on the cohesion scale, demonstrating that there was some social efficacy in the team. An analysis of the collective efficacy inventory showed that in task cohesion there was a poor individual consideration of the players needs which recorded a beta coefficient of 0.04. Intellectual stimulation also recorded a poor beta coefficient of 0.05 in task cohesion activities which shows that the players did not have any mental stimulation to perform team activities beyond their capabilities.
Contingent reward recorded a high beta coefficient of 0.44 in task cohesion while appropriate role modelling has a beta coefficient of 0.42 in task cohesion activities within the team. With regards to social cohesion, inspirational motivation recorded a high beta coefficient of 0.44 when compared to intellectual stimulation which recorded a low beta coefficient of 0.08. High performance expectations also recorded a low beta coefficient of 0.09 in social cohesion activities which showed that the coach did not communicate his team expectations to his players. The beta coefficient for contingent rewards had a recording of 0.40 followed by appropriate role modelling which had a beta coefficient of 0.38.
The collective efficacy of the team showed that inspirational motivation had a beta coefficient of 0.41 which demonstrated that there was some level of motivation from the coach when it came to collective efficacy activities. Individual consideration had a beta coefficient of 0.33 in collective efficacy which showed that the coach had high expectations that the team would win. Intellectual stimulation recorded a low beta coefficient of 0.04 in collective efficacy which showed that the team’s players were not mentally stimulated to achieve the high expectations of the coach (Callow et al., 2009).
Interventions for the Case Study
As identified in the case study, there is a lack of group cohesion in the team and the coach has demonstrated poor leadership skills which have contributed to the groups dismal performance in previous volleyball tournamements. To remedy the situation, group cohesion within the volleyball team has to be improved and the input-throughput-output model can be used to achieve cohesiveness amongst the 20 member volleyball team which will eventually lead to an improvement of the team’s collective efficacy. The input-throughput-output model elements that will be used in achieving cohesiveness in the team are outlined by the table below
(Source: Flin et al, 2008).
The input-throughput-output model that will be used to manage cohesion within the volleyball team will resemble the following diagram. The individual factors of the team such as experience and skills and the individual factors of the leader such skills, personality and attitudes are used to influence the outcomes of the model such as job satisfaction, group cohesion and increased job satisfaction. The structure of the team is the size of the team where an optimum size such as the 20 member volleyball team can be able to achieve the tasks of the team. The norms and rules of the team are used to establish the differences that exist amongst the different members of the team. Team structure is also described by the overall cohesiveness that exists amongst the group’s members. This model can be used by the coach to improve the team’s performance (Hanton & Mellalieu, 2006).
The transformational leadership theory can be used by the team’s coach to change the motivational levels of the team’s players as well as their intellectual stimulation. The coach can incorporate the use of the various components of transformational leadership to motivate the players to perform well in their volleyball tournaments. One of these components, idealized influence, will involve the coach changing his behaviour from being that of being overtly demanding to demanding his players to achieve the best based on their abilities. Idealized influence will involve the coach emphasizing the importance of having a collective purpose and mission (Hacker & Roberts, 2004).
Another component of transformational leadership that can be used by the coach in improving the performance of the team will be inspirational motivation where the coach adopts behaviour that is meant to motivate and inspire his team members. Inspirational motivation will allow the coach to change the performance levels of the team’s players by providing the team with some meaning and direction (Wagner, 2005). Once the coach has inspirational motivation, the team spirit will be improved and their will be a heightened sense of cohesiveness within the team. If the volleyball players are inspired and motivated, they will be more optimistic and enthusiastic to achieve collective efficacy within the team (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
Intellectual stimulation which is another component of a transformational leader can be incorporated by the coach during motivational sessions and training exercises to motivate the volleyball players to play well on the volleyball pitch. By stimulating the players to be more innovative and creative when it comes to playing tactics, the coach will be able to stimulate the intellectual capacities of the players to play volleyball in a more successful way (Dobbs & Walker, 2010). The coach should also utilise another component of transformational leadership which is the individualised consideration of each player’s needs and expectation for achievement and growth within the team. Individualised consideration will play an important role when trying to determine the individual capabilities of each player (Brower & Balch, 2005).
References
Arvey, R.D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy: Genetic and personality factors. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.17, pp 1-20.
Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Leadership models, methods, and applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Bass, B.M. & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M., & Riggio, R.E., (2006). Transformational leadership, 2nd Edition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Beyerlein, M.M., Johnson, D.A., & Beyerlein, S.T., (2001). Virtual teams. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Brower, R.E., & Balch, B.V., (2005). Transformational leadership and decision making in schools. California: Corwin Press.
Callow, N., Smith, M.J., Hardy, L., Calum, A.A., & Hardy, J., (2009). Leadership and its relationship with team cohesion and performance level. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, Vol.21, No.4, pp 395-412.
Corey, G., (2008). Theory and practice of group counselling. Belmont, California: Thomson Higher Education.
Corey, S.M., Corey, G., & Corey, C., (2010). Groups: process and practice. California: Brooks/Cole.
Dobbs, R., & Walker, P.R., (2010). Transformational leadership: a blueprint for real organizational change. California: Parkhurst Brothers Publishers.
Flin, R., O’Connor, P., & Crichton, M., (2008). Safety at the sharp end; a guide to non-technical skills. Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Forsyth, D.R., (2010). Group dynamics. California: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Giuliani, R.W., & Kurson, K., (2005). Leadership. New York: Miramax Books.
Hacker, S., & Roberts (2004). Transformational leadership: creating organizations of meaning. Milwaukee: American Society for Quality Press.
Hanton, S., & Mellalieu, S.D., (2006). Literature reviews in sport psychology. Belmont, US: Nova Science Publishers.
Hechter, M., & Home, C., (2009). Theories of social order: a reader. Stanford, US: Stanford University Press.
Loughead, T.M., & Carron, A.V., (2004). The mediating role of cohesion in the leader behaviour: satisfaction relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, Vol.5, pp 355-371.
Northouse, P.G., (2010). Leadership: theory and practice. California: Sage Publications Schneider, F.W., Gruman, J.A., & Coutts, L.M., (2005). Applied social psychology. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Thye, S.R., & Lawler, E.J., (2002). Group cohesion, trust and solidarity. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Tubbs, S.L., (2007). A systems approach to small group interaction. New York: Mc-graw Hill.
Vermeulen, P.A., Shaughnessy, K.C., & Jong, J.P., (2003, June). Innovation in SMEs: an empirical investigation of the input-throughput-output performance model. Web.
Wagner, L., (2005). Leading up: transformational leadership for fundraising. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Yalom, I.D., (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy, 5th Edition. New York: Basic Books.
Yalom, I.D., & Leszcz, M., (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.