The Essay On The Importance Of Psychology In Sports Performance Improvement.

Teamwork Theory and Its Phases

Describe about the CPR Team Work, Interpersonal Skills and Team Efficiency Audit?

Over the past decades the sports captains and coaches have realized the importance of psychology within the performance of the sports members. The psychological effects of motivation and reduction of anxiety is possible after the psychological counseling. According to Agius, Esposito and Farrugia, (2012) the sports persons requires to have a clam and combined mental set up in order to face the stress of the competitions and also in order to play well at times of tension. Thus mental psychological coaching helps the sportspersons to break the mental barriers and increase their concentration levels so that they can perform better (Schlick, Frieling and Wegge, 2013). Following are the major factors that makes psychology important for sports performance improvement.

Improvement of focus: The ability to concentrate helps the individuals to overcome the visual and the mental distractions and keep a sharp focus on the goal they desire to achieve (Baron, 2013).

Development of coping skills: The ability to face the situations of criticisms and failures is a major part of the sports performance. Thus psychological coaching gives the player an external motivation in the middle of the dark times and helps the player to be strong enough to face all kinds of diverse situations (Tyuse, 2012).

Development of team cohesion: Sports are related to team performance rather than the individual performance. Psychology can impro0ve the communication skills between the different team members and create a situation of bonding and understanding between the team members to ensure effective performance levels (Asherman, 2012).

In order to effectively co ordinate a sports team the stages of the Teamwork Theory may be applied within the team formation. In the year 1965, Tuckerman introduced this model of Teamwork theory that highlights the four different phases and the psychology of the team members in the phases along with the recommendations for the actions to be taken in the phases more effective team building (Ryan, 2012).

The following are the stages of the team formation.

Forming: It is the initial stage of team development when all the sports persons within a team are new to one another and thus they have not yet co ordinate well with each other (Dodds and Johnson, 2012). This stage is characterized by anxiety within the team members as wall the members get busy and involved in making a place of themselves within the team. In this stage the members largely depends on the leader for guidance and direction and high degree of chaos is noticed within the members.

Storming: In the second stage the individuals starts to accept themselves as a part of their team. Since the gaining of the experience the team members begins to challenge the decisions of the leaders as well as the other team members. This stage is characterized by the high degree of persistent tension and completion between the team members in relation to establishment of individual characteristics within the team.

Creation of Team Spirit

Norming: In this stage all the team members starts to work together in full congeniality. The team rules, processes, goal identification, allocation of tasks are done at this stage. This stage is thus characterized by growing sense of togetherness. The participatory or shared leadership is noticed within this stage.

Performing: This is the final stage of team formation when the team is strategically and rationally aware of the actions and emotions within the team. The team develops a shared vision and is independent. The leaders at this stage may adopt the situational leadership strategy.

Team spirit is a part of the positive aspect that is found within a team that makes the individuals within a team happy and they perform their tasks effectively (Olausson, 2013). It is important because the team members get a sense of unity from the team spirit and this sense enhances the level of performance. It also helps to prevent misunderstanding and chaos within the team. The act of co operation makes the productivity levels high and the team members remain totally aware of the tasks and the responsibilities they are required to perform (Dr. S.V.Sowani, 2012). The major focus of the team spirit is to reduce the burden of risks, accountability and chances of failure within the team. The act of co ordinate decision making ability gives the team members an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of all decisions and the probable problems or chances of failure that may arise due to the involvement in the team decisions. With the help of open communications and high rationality the team members can build the team spirit or the unity of the team. In order to maintain the team spirit the team members will have to keep the conflicts away and manage the various changing moods and situations within the team (Geisler, 2012).

Team cohesion and group think are two most important factors for enhancement of the performance of a sports team (McLernon, 2012). The concept of group think is essential in a sport team because the concept of group think suggests that the team members within the team will remain loyal to the team objectives. In majority of the cases it has been seen that due to lack of groupthink the instances of match betting has occurred. The team members within the different sports team has turned towards a competitive team due to financial gain. Team cohesion on the contrary is the act of working together within a team. Thus the teams which are cohesive in nature are reported to perform better even in situations of stress (Gillespie, 2012). For instance clubs like the Manchester City has been highly criticized for their underperformance stating that the team lacks cohesiveness within the team members. This is because the teams members are all well established sportspersons are are thus not involved with each other while playing for the team. Lack of team cohesion gives rise to the lack of respect within the team members suggesting that the team is not able to coordinate successfully. However, Kambi, (2012) argued that high degree of group think may make it difficult for the leaders and the coaches to guide the team members under the different changing situations. The group think will make the team unite against any proposed change and all the decisions will be taken in the same direction as the members start to think in the same direction.

Group Cohesion and Group Think

Various issues are also noticed within the teams and groups. The major issue being the social loafing issue. The concept of social loafing issue states that some of the people within a group or team are at times prone to exert less pressure on the performance since they are performing within a group. This shows that the total burden falls upon the other group members who are more responsible and are not able to avoid the responsibility. The individuals engaged in social loafing are seen to utilize the talent of the other group members to get their work done without using any talent or work of their own (Gregory, 2012). This has a negative consequence for the group as well as the individual. The group dynamic is affected when certain individuals are seen as weak contributors to the group purpose. It tends to split the group and fosters a lack of cohesion. For example, if only five of the eight members of a team are doing the majority of the work, it will often create an 'in' group (those members that are working hard) and an 'out' group (those members that are not contributing as much) situation within a team. This creates a situation of mental and emotional barrier between the in group and the out group members and the out group members may feel that the in group members are not considering them as an important part of the group. Resentment can arise between the members creating a non congenial situation within the group. Some of the factors that generally triggers social loafing are the group size( huge group size of more than 20 members), low levels of group motivations, reduced sense of contribution and no appraisal of the group members. Thus, in order to successfully prevent the situations of social loafing the above acts should be avoided within a group and make the team members feel important within the group so that they may contribute effectively to the overall growth of the team (Ingvaldsen, Holtskog and Ringen, 2013).

References

Agius, V., Esposito, T. and Farrugia, M. (2012). CPR team work, interpersonal skills and team efficiency audit. Resuscitation, 83, pp.e118-e119.

Asherman, I. (2012). Negotiation at work. New York: AMACOM.

Baron, E. (2013). Innovative team selling. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dodds, J. and Johnson, S. (2012). Mastering Autodesk Navisworks 2013. New York: John Wiley & amp; Sons.

Dr. S.V.Sowani, D. (2012). Organizational Efficiency Through Team Work. IJSR, 3(2), pp.91-92.

Geisler, J. (2012). Work happy. New York: Center Street.

Gillespie, J. (2012). Enhancing Social Work Education Through Team-Based Learning. Journal of Social Work Education, 48(2), pp.377-387.

Gregory, H. (2012). Team work. North Mankato, MN: Capstone Press.

Ingvaldsen, J., Holtskog, H. and Ringen, G. (2013). Unlocking work standards through systematic work observation: implications for team supervision. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 19(5/6), pp.279-291.

Kambi, B. (2012). Team Work For Business Organization Perfomance. Saarbrücken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.

McLernon, A. (2012). Angela McLernon: Team work gets results. Practice Nursing, 23(4), pp.214-214.

Olausson, M. (2013). Pro team foundation service. [Berkely, Calif.]: Apress.

Ryan, S. (2012). When is a team a team? “Teamworking” and the reorganisation of work in commercial cleaning. Employee Relations, 34(3), pp.255-270.

Schlick, C., Frieling, E. and Wegge, J. (2013). Age-differentiated work systems. Berlin: Springer.

Tyuse, S. (2012). A Crisis Intervention Team Program: Four-Year Outcomes. Social Work in Mental Health, 10(6), pp.464-477.