Homework - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Homework

Description:

Homework Complete the connector activities on the Group Success Tab answering the questions after reviewing the two videos Annotate Ryder Cup article – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:705
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 32
Provided by: Matt4167
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Homework


1
Homework
  • Complete the connector activities on the Group
    Success Tab answering the questions after
    reviewing the two videos on the mypeexam.org
    website
  • Annotate Ryder Cup article
  • Questions on Page 203

2
Card Exercise
  • Need one observer
  • One group of 3
  • 1 person on their own

3
How does this link to group success?
4
What is a group?
  • 4 marks
  • Page 194 and 195

5
Evolution of a group -
  • Forming
  • Storming
  • Norming -
  • Performing -
  • Tuckman (1965)

6
Tuckmans model
7
What happened to AVB at Chelsea and Tottenham and
vice versa?
8
Tuckmans model
9
Different types of cohesion
  • Cohesion
  • Task cohesion
  • Social cohesion

10
Group dynamics example
11
Bootcamp
  • It takes people from all backgrounds, and from
    different parts of the country who may have
    nothing in common.
  • They are given the same appearance, which
    identifies them as the same.
  • The instructor gives them a shared negative
    experience that will give them something in
    common.
  • In one quick experience they become a group.

12
Which is more important and why?
  • Task or social cohesion

13
Measuring cohesion
  • Observation of behaviour
  • Sociogram
  • Questionnaire - The Group Environment
    Questionnaire

14
Do cohesive groups win?
  • There are exceptions - Rodman and Jordan
  • Desire to win may supersede personal dislikes
  • task cohesion overcomes social cohesion
  • Cohesion alone cannot ensure success.

15
Factors (antecedents) that contribute to cohesion
(Carron 1982)
  • What are the factors that affect group
    cohesiveness? (4 marks)
  • Member characteristics
  • Environmental / situational factors
  • Leadership style
  • Team elements

16
CARRONS MODEL
  • Page 197
  • Set our a Cornell table to make notes and ask
    questions

17
Strategies to develop an effective group and
cohesion
  • What strategies have your coaches / teachers
    used?
  • Page 199

18
Productivity (Steiners Model)
Actual Productivity
Potential Productivity
Faulty Processes
-

If 2 individuals in a tug-of-war team are each
able to pull 100kg, their potential productivity
is 200kg. However, they will pull less than
this, probably around 180kg - because of the
inability to coordinate their efforts and/or
because each person might expect the other to
carry the main load. Therefore there are process
losses of 20kg.
19
Who is going to win??
  • Group A will beat Group B if
  • Group A possesses greater relevant resources and
    experiences fewer or equal process losses
  • Group A possesses equal relevant resources but
    experiences fewer process losses
  • Group A possesses less resources but experiences
    much less process loss

20
Football example with numbers
  • If Arsenals potential productivity 90 and Hull
    Citys potential productivity 60, Hull can
    still win.
  • If Arsenal experience process losses equal to 40,
    and Hull only lose 5, Hulls actual productivity
    will 55, while Arsenal will 50.
  • This is how giant killings happen each year.

21
Causes of process losses
  • Process losses are commonly caused by
  • Co-ordination losses eg
  • Motivational loses eg

22
Think back to the card sort
23
The Ringlemann effect
  • Ringlemann observed individuals, groups of 2, 3,
    and 8 people pulling on a rope.
  • Did 2 people pull twice as hard as 1 person?
  • NO!
  • 1 in a group of 2 pulled on average 93 of the
    individual score.
  • In groups of 3 it fell to 85, and groups of 8 to
    49.

24
Social loafing
  • The tendency for individuals to put in less than
    maximum effort when working as part of a group.
  • This is different from the Ringlemann effect.
    How?
  • Latane (1979) found that people in groups do not
    clap as hard as individuals - individual effort
    is lost in a crowd!

25
How to beat social loafing and the Ringlemann
effect!
  • Identify individual contribution - individual
    playing statistics - this be detrimental to
    cohesion
  • Increase peer pressure
  • Improve group co-ordination skills (set plays)
  • Select team players
  • Give more responsibility / set individual roles /
    targets

26
What else can coaches do?
  • Limit process losses.
  • Ensure that players are clear about their roles
    within the team.
  • Establish clear team rules and expectations.
  • Encourage social cohesion, but do not expect
    everyone to socialize together.
  • Democracy increases cohesion - allow the team to
    make some decisions.
  • Team building exercises.

27
Summary
  • A group is 2 or more individuals working towards
    a common goal.
  • Group cohesion can be related to the task or to
    social relationships.
  • The Ringlemann effect and social loafing explain
    how some groups under-perform.

28
Team talks
  • Team talks are open only to group members.
  • As such they bring the group together.
  • Some team talks are more effective than others
  • Compare these examples

29
Video
30
Examination review
31
What were the differences?
  • Next week leadership
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com