26.3: Team Development

Just as sport psychologists use psychological approaches to improve experiences within sport, application seems particularly woven into the fabric of group dynamics research that often focuses on enhancing productivity in other settings like military units and surgical teams (Paradis & Martin, 2012). As such, those who study groups often develop knowledge that has direct use for coaches and athletes. Many of you may recognize strategies that athletes or coaches intuitively use to enhance groups. Perhaps you remember gatherings such as potlucks that bring teammates together or participated in team discussions about group norms. Although it is great to see team leaders implementing activities to enhance their group, researchers have produced key insights that help team leaders to more consistently produce positive team environments. For instance, Box 26.3 lists several insights about developing optimal groups drawn from the available literature. These are only a sample of take-home messages that can be integrated into a group leader’s everyday actions. Sport researchers have also developed formal interventions that can be adopted within various life settings. In the next section, we identify the main approaches used to develop groups and then provide examples of team development interventions.

26.3.1. Team Development Intervention Approaches

Team development interventions refer to activities delivered with members of groups to improve team effectiveness. These interventions are systematically delivered by either a team leader or by a consultant (e.g., sport psychologist), using either direct or indirect approaches (Carron & Eys, 2012).Within an indirect approach, a consultant works alongside a group leader who then introduces the intervention to the team. Because the focus is on training a leader like a coach to manage the group, the consultant may never even meet all of the team members. Meanwhile, within a direct approach, a consultant is invited to work directly with the athletes and facilitates one or more team development sessions.

26.3.1.1. Team-Building

Most team development interventions within sport fall under the category of team-building. Team-building is designed to improve team effectiveness by enhancing members’ perceptions of group cohesion (Brawley & Paskevich, 1997). The main idea behind team-building is that, by strengthening team members’ perceptions of cohesion, you will create the foundation for members to (a) work hard toward group goals and (b) value their affiliation with the group. Although team-building tactics are often used to improve team performance, their main function is to help members bond and feel attracted to the team.

One review of 17 interventions revealed that team-building typically produces improved team performance, along with enhanced task and social cohesion, and reduced competitive anxiety (Martin et al., 2009). Importantly, Martin and colleagues advised against “one-off” sessions, as team-building interventions were more effective when delivered across two or more weeks. Clearly, team-building works.

Regarding the “working parts” of team-building, researchers have identified four approaches that are most common (Lacerenza et al., 2018). One type focuses on fostering interpersonal relationships, where members participate in activities that aim to strengthen social bonds or build understanding of members’ values. Interpersonal relationship strategies are evident in many of the social activities that coaches intuitively use to develop teams. A second tactic is group goal-setting, where athletes contribute to the process of establishing collective goals and evaluating goal progress throughout the season. Although goal-setting activities might seem especially task-focused, sport-based interventions reveal that they can increase both task and social cohesion perceptions (e.g., Senécal et al., 2008). Third, problem solving involves exposing teams to a novel challenge to overcome. Often, these are challenges that a group might not normally face, such as an outing with team members to complete an obstacle course. Fourth and finally, tactics to enhance individual role involvement are common. These activities increase role communication among members and with coaches, with a goal of ensuring that members understand and perform their roles.

26.3.1.2. Other Team Development Categories

Although team-building is the prevailing category of team development interventions in sport, there are three additional families of interventions that group dynamics researchers have distinguished (see Lacerenza et al., 2018). Recall that team-building is designed to enhance cohesion, so the remaining families focus on goals that do not necessarily target cohesion or personal relationships. The first additional category is teamwork training and usually involves training members to efficiently coordinate their actions. Although teamwork training activities can increase cohesion, the chief focus is on ensuring that members can effectively cooperate. Leadership training is the second category and involves helping leaders to better-integrate members and create an inclusive team. Finally, team debriefing is a unique category of strategies that can help guide teammates through adaptive discussions following training sessions or performances. For instance, Martin and Eys (2019) interviewed members of an acrobatic jet team, who indicated that detailed debriefing sessions were essential after every flight. Debriefing was seen as a way to prompt individual learning and reflection, while also providing opportunities for every member to acquire a sense for the group’s objectives and approaches to solve problems.

26.3.2. Illustrative Interventions

Examples are perhaps the best way to understand what team development involves. Below, we introduce two example team-building interventions, and one example intervention focused on teamwork training.

26.3.2.1. Carron, Spink, and Prapavessis’s (1997) Team-Building Framework

Carron, Spink, and Prapavessis’s (1997) framework outlines an indirect approach, in that the consultant trains coaches who then deliver activities with their teams. The defining feature of this framework is that it is delivered through coaches, who learn to brainstorm tactics to regulate their team environment.

Consultants using this framework conduct coach training across one or more workshop sessions in three stages: (a) introduction (i.e., coaches are introduced to team-building and its value), (b) conceptual (i.e., consultant explains theory regarding the different aspects of groups that can be targeted in team-building), and (c) practical (i.e., coaches brainstorm their intervention plan). During the conceptual and practical stages, coaches are trained to focus on three distinct aspects of groups. Coaches are first prompted to enhance the group environment, using strategies to draw members together and help members to feel distinct from other groups. Second, coaches are prompted to enhance the team structure, by considering activities that can help clarify roles, embed positive norms, and improve athlete leadership. Third, coaches are trained to prompt positive team processes by creating chances for cooperation, goal setting, and for members to make sacrifices for the team. After being educated about these aspects of team-building and brainstorming their strategies, coaches independently implement the plan throughout the season.

Box 26.3. Insights from Group Dynamics Research About Fostering Optimal Groups

1. Team development should be deliberately implemented. One misperception is that informal social events or cooperative activities are the primary approaches to team-building. Although informal social activities can effectively foster interpersonal relationships, a risk is that teams will feel that social activities are the only way to develop the team. Instead, team development is likely most effective when it targets many aspects of the group environment, and when it is carefully designed by group leaders and athletes.
2. Strategies to develop groups should last throughout the lifespan of the group. Another misperception is that team-building is mainly required during the early season. The early season is a critical time, but is not the only time to intervene. Group leaders may find that members waver between conflict and being closely integrated, and that the group can be negatively impacted following key events like poor performances. For instance, one study with intercollegiate athletes revealed that injuries to key players sent shockwaves throughout the team (Surya et al., 2015). Athletes described how this was a time to consolidate the team, and for the coaches to discuss how the group was expected to manage these shifts (i.e., adjusting roles).
3. Team development starts the moment a member joins the group. Any time that new members are introduced into a team is a time to consider the group environment. Benson and Eys (2017) specifically reported that positive perceptions like cohesion and commitment were most common in teams where: (a) coaches communicated their role expectations to each newcomer directly while sharing how the athletes could increase the scope of their role, (b) existing members were included in the steps to introduce new members (e.g., mentors), and (c) social activities were planned, and everyone could participate in them.
4. Team development can replace hazing. Hazing is a practice that many organizations are striving to eliminate, where more senior members demand that newcomers engage in behaviors that are often risky or embarrassing. Group leaders should consider pathways to replace the socializing functions that athletes ostensibly design hazing to serve. For instance, Johnson and Chin (2016) reported an outdoor adventure activity that teams of intercollegiate athletes completed early in the season, which was seen as a way of reducing risks of hazing in teams.
5. Athlete leaders can take ownership. Shared leadership is an attribute of high-performing groups (e.g., Cotterill & Fransen, 2016), whereby leadership functions are shared between coaches and athlete leaders. Athlete leaders–such as team captains–may have special value for team development because they have access to aspects of team relationships that cannot be accessed by coaches. As such, it is important for coaches to cooperate with athlete leaders when determining how they will develop an optimal group environment.
6. Team development often involves entire organizations. Team development is often focused on the sport team and specifically on the athletes of a given team. However, sport teams often belong to broader organizations that can include several teams, staff members, and administrative roles (e.g., intercollegiate athletics departments; professional or youth sport clubs). Fletcher and Wagstaff (2009) therefore explain that those in sport should consider how to develop the optimal organization – often borrowing strategies that are used to enhance environments in organizations outside of sport.

26.3.2.2. Personal Disclosure as Team-Building

Compared with the indirect approach of Carron and colleagues (1997), personal-disclosure mutual-sharing team-building interventions are often completed over a shorter period of time. These interventions involve consultant-led team discussions, where members share personal values/experiences or express what the given sport or team “means” for them (e.g., Barker et al., 2014; Holt & Dunn, 2006). For instance, Barker and colleagues (2014) reported on an intervention with elite adolescent cricket athletes from the United Kingdom during an overseas tour. Athletes on the touring group were oriented to the expectations for the intervention and were asked to prepare written responses to disclosure prompts (e.g., why they compete in cricket). Athletes then attended disclosure sessions during the tour where every member took turns sharing their disclosure.

These discussions can often be powerful experiences that draw members together. Along with the potential for success, disclosure sessions may feel uncomfortable for some athletes. Disclosure may also cause harm to teammate relationships or athletes’ reputation if inappropriate information is disclosed or if their disclosure is used against them. Accordingly, Holt and Dunn (2006) stress the need to carefully present the disclosure expectations (e.g., confidentiality) and to consider whether athletes will be likely to follow these expectations.

26.3.2.3. Teamwork Training

McEwan and Beauchamp (2020) developed and pilot-tested an intervention that aimed to train teammates to work together more efficiently. In this intervention, athletes received a workbook and engaged in two teamwork training sessions over a 10-week period. The teamwork training intervention sessions included group goal-setting practices alongside several types of activities designed to improve members’ skillsets and knowledge about how to cooperate (e.g., how to provide constructive feedback). Simulations were one example of an intervention activity. Athletes identified the key teamwork behaviors required for their group to perform optimally, and developed simulation activities that targeted these behaviors during a subsequent practice (i.e., scrimmages to simulate competitive environments that stressed certain components of task communication). As another example, athletes worked together to create a team charter during the second workshop session. Each team charter outlined the behaviors that members should expect from one another in terms of: (a) providing social support and (b) resolving interpersonal conflicts.