Team Cohesion - Task and Social Cohesion
Group of players huddled together in a sport field.
Team cohesion is a common topic in many fields. Chances are that many of us are familiar with team cohesion in the work place, for example. Team cohesion in sports is another great example and a place to explore. Thus, this post aims to look at task cohesion and social cohesion to discuss the interplay between both types of cohesion as it relates to building effective team performances.
Carron et al. (1998) defined cohesion as a dynamic process derived from the propensity for teams to stay together and stay united in their determination to reach their instrumental objectives and fulfill the affective needs of the team members. Mouthful! Let’s break down the definition.First, the dynamic element implies that change occurs over time as the team develops. Second, there are two areas of focus, tasks and social needs. Third, this definition opens the door to describing cohesion as multi-dimensional, which Estabrooks and Dennis (2007) also do. Based on the above definition, Carron et al. (1985) introduced a four-dimensional model incorporating perceptual orientations addressing task and social needs.
These four dimensions are:
ATG-T: individuals' view of their attraction to the task needs of the team
ATG-S: individuals' view of their attraction to the social needs of the team
GI-T: team's integration addressing the task needs or goals
GI-S: team's integration addressing social needs or goals
These four tasks look at both the social and task needs of the group by looking for the team and individual perspectives. It seems obvious to say that everything points back to the group. However, it is worth pointing out because cohesion, as Estabrooks and Dennis (2007) discussed, maximizes the importance of the group and minimizes the importance of each individual.
So, why take the time to review the definition and the four dimensions? Because they highlight how important it is to consider both task and social aspects as they are vital in developing cohesion. However, I also wanted to use this information to suggest that there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to saying a certain percentage of social and task focus works for every team. It has already been discussed how cohesion is dynamic and multi-dimensional, which means that the percentage of social focus versus task focus may change over time for a team and differ from team to team based on team composition. For instance, there may need to be more focus on social needs at the beginning of a team coming together so that they can get to know one another. Or another example that Estabrooks and Dennis (2007) provided was that a team might be in conflict socially but be united by the task. Falcão et al. (2015) provide another example of other factors that determine a percentage. The study that Falcão et al. (2015) conducted was in the Paralympic setting and highlighted how critical interpersonal activities were to build cohesion due to the distinct nature of the setting but that task-related projects, goal setting, and a commitment to athlete communication were still necessary.
Ultimately, it is important to understand when it comes to task and social cohesion, that is no one size fits all. Rather, when addressing the different types of cohesion, it requires awareness of the team, where they are in their development as a team, what is needed in the moment, and that the team can shift. Not easy, but very doable!
take action today moment:
While this post uses a sports team to look briefly as social and task cohesion, you can think about these concepts in many different settings as alluded to in the opening.Often in our busy days we do not pay attention relational dynamics, Take some time to observe the relational dynamics in your life and think about social and task cohesion in the context of these relationships. What do you notice? What can you learn about yourself within the dynamic and about the group, team, or partnership?
Learn More About Team Cohesion:
From “Me” to “We”: Promoting Team Cohesion Among Youth Athletes
Two Sides of the Same Coin: Turning Conflict Into Cohesion
References
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213–226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244–266.
Estabrooks, P. A., & Dennis P. W. (2007). The principles of team building and their application to sport teams. In R. Lidor & K. Henschen (Eds.). The psychology of team sports (pp. 112-126). Fitness Information Technology.
Falcão, W. R., Bloom, G. A., & Loughead, T. M. (2015). Coaches’ perceptions of team cohesion in Paralympic sports. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 32(3), 206-222. https://doi.org/10.1123/APAQ.2014-0122