1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Coaches in all sports have stressed the word team as a critical component of
success. “There’s no I in team” is a common phrase that has been used from youth sports
to professional sports. The idea behind this team concept is to create an atmosphere of
loyalty and trust among athletes to maximize success. In the sports world, this is known
as cohesion. Cohesion is first noticed in a small group when members are able to work
together toward a common goal and refer to themselves as ‘we’. When needs, interests,
and expectations are met, group members have a feeling of fulfillment around the
dynamics of the group. In order to determine whether or not a group has become
cohesive, it is important to notice how members define cohesion. Numerous
unidimensional definitions of cohesion existed in the earliest research. As a result of the
many facets of cohesion, Carron (1982) developed a multidimensional definition of team
cohesion as “a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick
together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the
satisfaction of member affective needs” (p. 213). Encouraging player interaction away
from the athletic environment, adopting team slogans and creating or maintaining team
traditions are employed to increase the unity within the group (Martin, 1997). The theory
behind the team concept is that a group who works well together and gets along with each
other will have a greater chance of winning. Typically, team cohesion is discussed in
relation to the athletes and the teams’ record of success.
2
Team cohesion can develop without the involvement of the coaching staff;
however, for best results, the coaching staff is involved (Blackburn, 1985). Blackburn
(1985) suggested that for cohesion to exist among players, it must first exist among
coaches. While there have been numerous studies examining the relationships between
coaches and athletes or coaches and parents, very few studies have been done to study the
relationships within a coaching staff. Developing cohesion among the coaches of a given
team may be a critical component in developing a sense of unity among participants
(Martin, 2002). An examination of the relationship between coaches and their win/loss
record should be conducted to gain further insight regarding team cohesion.
Statement of the Problem
Although research shows that cohesion between team members can lead to greater
success, minimal research has been done to examine the cohesion between coaches and
its relation to the success of the team. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
examine the relationship of coaching staff cohesion or its perception of cohesion and the
team’s success according to win/loss records. In addition, the differences in perceptions
of cohesion between the head and assistant coaches were also examined.
Significance of the Study
The benefits of team cohesion on a sporting team have shown positive results.
However, research concerning team cohesion has only been studied from an athlete’s
perspective. This study will contribute to the literature that exists on cohesion and
success on sporting teams from a coaching staff perspective. The significance of this
study will provide more knowledge to coaching staff cohesion and its relationship to
3
winning. Insight to this relationship will provide coaches with new information
regarding cohesion of their coaching staffs and the success of these coaching staffs.
Definition of Terms
Coaching Staff: the head and assistant coaches of the football teams.
Coaching Staff Cohesion Scale: a 22-item questionnaire designed to examine coaching
staff cohesion among head and assistant coaches.
Coacting Teams: groups in which the outcome of a contest is a result of individual
performances that are averaged to arrive at a team score.
Cohesion: “a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick
together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the
satisfaction of member affective needs” (Carron, 1982, p. 135).
Group Integration: “each individual’s perceptions of the group as a total unit, set, or
collection” (Carron & Dennis, 1998, p. 130).
Interacting Teams: “those in which the individual contribution of each team member is
directly related to the achievement of the group goal” (Bird, 1977, p. 218).
Perceived cohesiveness: a coach’s belief that there is a closeness and/or unity within the
team.
Success: a win/loss percentage at the conclusion of the traditional regular football season.
Social-cohesion: social relationships (i.e. friendships, bonding) within a group or team.
Task-cohesion: “exists when the group coheres around the task it was organized to
perform” (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985, p. 247).
4
Limitations
1. This study was limited to the number of years a coaching staff has worked
together that may influence their levels of cohesiveness.
2. This study was limited to success and its influence of athletic skill level on their
respective teams.
3. This study was limited to the subjects answering the questionnaire as honest as
possible, without fear of retaliation from the head coach.
Delimitations
1. The subjects only consisted of California Community College football coaches in
the Northern California Football Association.
2. The questionnaire was administered in the middle of their football season.
3. Success was determined by the win/loss record recorded at the end of the regular
season.
Assumptions
1.
The researcher assumed that the subjects will attempt to answer the questions of
the CSCS with honesty.
2. The researcher assumed that none of the subjects would bias the study by not
following procedures prescribed for them.
3. The researcher assumed that the CSCS is a reliable tool to measure coaching staff
cohesion.
5
Hypotheses
1. There will be no significant difference in coaching staff cohesion between head
and assistant coaches.
2. There will be no significant differences in coaching staff cohesion levels
according to win/loss records.
6
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Traditionally, the outcome of an athletic contest and the overall win/loss record of
a given team have been used as the determinants of performance success in sports
(Martin, 1997). The effectiveness of sport teams in competition is dependent upon many
factors, one of which is the ability of individual members to work together (Martens &
Peterson, 1971). The first attempt to define cohesion came from Festinger, Schacter, and
Back (1950), who claimed that cohesion was “the total field of forces that act on
members to remain in the group” (p. 164). Early research on cohesion used this
definition which implies that cohesion is unidimensional. Through several research
studies, cohesion was determined to be a multidimensional rather than unidimensional
construct (Carron & Chelladurai, 1981; Widmeyer & Martens, 1978; Yukelson et al.,
1984). Determined to create a multidimensional perspective, Carron (1982) defined
cohesion as “a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick
together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the
satisfaction of member affective needs” (p. 135).
Many researchers have reported a positive relation between team cohesion and
team success (Carron & Chelladurai, 1981; Landers & Crum, 1971; Widmeyer &
Martens, 1978; Williams & Hacker, 1982; Williams & Widmeyer, 1991; Yukelson,
Weinberg, & Jackson, 1984); however, the relation has not been consistently supported
(McGrath, 1962; Lenk, 1969; Landers & Luschen, 1974; Melnick & Chemers, 1974) due
7
to the influence of various team elements such as frequency of interaction, proximity,
group size, and the nature of the sport (Bird, 1977; Carron & Dennis, 1998; Weinberg &
Gould, 1995). Despite conflicting research findings, coaches continue to strive to foster
and maintain cohesiveness on athletic teams. To provide a greater understanding of
cohesion and the impact it has on the performance success of athletes and coaches, this
review of literature includes a review of material focusing on the following topics: team
cohesion; coaching staff cohesion; and measurements of team cohesion.
Team Cohesion
The cohesion of athletic teams has been the subject of numerous studies designed
to understand the influence of this construct on performance success. Carron and
Chelladurai (1981) defined two factors which influence the development of cohesion on
an athletic team: group as a unit and individual to group. The first factor, group as a unit,
includes teamwork and closeness as variables. Individual to group cohesion includes
factors such as a sense of belonging, value of membership, and enjoyment derived from
participation.
Cohesion has been classified as two basic types; social and task. According to
Carron, Widmeyer and Brawley (1985), task cohesion “exists when the group coheres
around the task it was organized to perform” (p. 247). Task cohesion was found to have
an effect on the development of cohesiveness (Gruber & Gray, 1981; Yukelson et al.,
1984). Task cohesion is identified by items which measure the level of satisfaction of an
athlete when playing a sport. Yukelson et al. (1984) asserted that the “quality of team
work is related to task cohesion since it is important to get athletes to work together
8
within well defined compatible roles in order to achieve successful team performance”
(p. 114). Gruber and Gray (1981) found that, despite the differences in the levels of
group cohesion, the levels of task cohesion were consistent in all age groups studied. The
authors also concluded that although the reasons for participation may vary between less
skilled and college players, the completion of the task, in this case, playing basketball, is
of primary importance to the athletes involved. Gill and Clifton (1995) cited task
cohesion as “the most important variable for sport” (p. 376).
Social cohesion is non-task in focus and refers to social relationships (i.e.
friendships, bonding) within a group or team. To achieve high social cohesion, it is
essential for the group members to feel accepted and respected by one another and to
value their membership in a sport group (Yukelson et al., 1984). Social cohesion is
apparent in feelings of pride, unison, harmony and a sense of shared purpose.
Social cohesion is often identified by the sense of ‘we’ or togetherness exhibited by
successful athletic teams (Carron, 1993). The nature of the sport experience, essentially
described as a win/lose situation, was shown to have an effect on the interpersonal
relationships of team members (Myers, 1969). Myers (1969) stated, “it seems likely that
success should make it easier for individuals to interact with each other in a more
harmonious fashion while failure should put a strain on interpersonal relationships” (p.
366). While this hypothesis was supported, it should be assumed that only winning teams
are socially cohesive. In actuality, unsuccessful teams can increase cohesiveness by
concentrating on the process, not the outcome of athletic contests (Murray, 1985).
9
Similarly, losing provides an opportunity for the regrouping of the team and a
reevaluation of its goals and objectives.
Yukelson et al. (1984) identified four factors of cohesiveness representing both
social and task related values (p. 114). These factors were labeled unity of purpose,
valued roles, quality of teamwork, and attraction to the group. Two of these factors,
quality of teamwork, and unity of purpose are related to the group as a unit factor
identified by Carron and Chelladurai (1981), while valued roles and attraction to group
reflect individual reactions to the group itself, or individual to group cohesion. Only one
factor, attraction to group, represented both social and task components. Gruber and
Gray (1981) identified six factors of cohesiveness in a study of various levels of
basketball competition. These factors were labeled team performance satisfaction, task
cohesion, affiliation cohesion, self-performance satisfaction, desire for recognition, and
value of membership.
The level of social interaction among group members and the level of cohesion
perceived maybe influenced by the type of sport group being considered. Bird (1977)
identified two general classes of sport groups, interacting and coacting. Interacting sport
teams are those in which the individual contribution of each team member is directly
related to the achievement of the group goal such as basketball and soccer (Bird, 1977).
Myers (1969) determined that as intragroup competition increases, cohesion increases as
a result of a “reaction to a common enemy” (p. 375). While this adversary is commonly
seen as the opponent in an athletic event, it is possible for the teammates to unite against
an unpopular coach or other such internal factors (Hall, 1985).
10
Coacting sport teams, conversely, are teams in which the outcome of a contest is a
result of individual performance scores that are averaged to arrive at a team score such as
golf or bowling teams. Performance and the attainment of goals then becomes an
individual responsibility. In this perspective, cohesion can have a positive or negative
influence on success. Coacting teams are generally more successful in low cohesion
situations, whereas the opposite is true for interacting teams (Landers, Wilkinson,
Hatfield, & Barber, 1982). Bird (1977) attributed this to the fact that in interacting team
situations, the performance of one team member can either benefit or hinder the
achievement of group goals, therefore the effective interweaving of talents and
personalities is advantageous. Landers et. al. (1982) determined that the nature of the
sport group, that is, whether it is an interacting or coacting sport, will determine how
cohesive the group becomes. Carron and Chelladurai (1981) found that perceptions of
cohesion differed among athletes competing in interacting versus coacting sports.
Landers et al. (1982) stated that “sports involving interaction like basketball are more
likely to display a positive relationship between cohesion and performance, whereas
coacting sport teams tend to display a negative or null relationship between these same
variables” (p. 182).
In sport today, the role of the coaching staff has gone beyond rolling a ball out
and administering chalk talk. According to Anshel (1994), “one of the greatest
challenges to coaches in sport is to ensure that all athletes are invested in the team’s long
term success” (p. 280). Essentially, coaches are being called upon to develop cohesion.
Interweaving individual talents and channeling the energies of these individuals and their
11
behaviors toward the accomplishment of predetermined team goals can be essential in
building cohesion.
Team Building through Goal Setting
Most of the sport-related research has focused largely on individual goal-settingperformance relationships. Of the research that has been completed on team goal setting
to build cohesion, most researchers have evaluated team goals as a collective (Brawley
Carron, & Widmeyer, 1992). Zander (1971) suggested four types of goals that may exist
concurrently within any group: (a) an individual member's goals for self, (b) an
individual member's goals for the group, (c) the group's goal, and (d) the group's goal for
individual members. By addressing only the individual or group level goal setting
practices, two potentially significant aspects of group goal setting are ignored. Dawson,
Bray, and Widmeyer (2002) examined the goal setting practices of university team sport
athletes using Zander's (1971) four-dimensional conceptual framework of group goals.
Participants were intercollegiate athletes (155 males and 80 females) belonging to various
sport teams. A questionnaire containing a description of Zander's (1971) goal typology
and relevant goal measures was completed during a regularly scheduled practice
occurring half way through the season. Results demonstrated both group and individual
goal setting properties found in previous sport-related research. However, in agreement
with Zander, and adding to the existent sport research, team goals for members and
members' goals for the team were also reported. Clearly, multiple types of goals exist
within sport teams that can help coaches build cohesion and team unity.
12
Widmeyer and Ducharme (1997) found that team goal setting can directly
influence cohesion by encouraging a greater team focus. The researchers outlined six
principles to establish a team goal setting program in athletic settings. First is the
establishment of long term goals. Second is to establish clear paths to the long term
goals. The third principle is to involve all team members in establishing team goals. The
fourth principle is to monitor progress toward the team goals. The fifth principle is to
reward team progress toward team goals. The last principle involves fostering collective
efficacy concerning team goal attainment. The authors conclude that team goal setting
variables are the most important factors in promoting group cohesion in athletic teams.
Senecal, Loughhead, and Bloom (2008) investigated whether the implementation
of a season-long team building intervention program using team goal setting increased
perceptions of cohesion. The study consisted of 86 female high school basketball players
from eight teams who all completed a group questionnaire at the beginning and end of the
season. Four of the teams were placed in an experimental group where they received a
team-goal setting program. The athletes selected team goals and established what needed
to be done to reach those goals. Reinforcement of these goals by the coach, and
evaluation and feedback from the sport psychologist consultant were also included in the
experimental group. The remaining four teams were placed in a control group and which
only completed the questionnaire at the beginning and end of the season. Results showed
that athletes did not differ in their perceptions of cohesion at the beginning of the season.
However, at the end of the season, athletes in the team goal-setting condition held higher
perceptions of cohesion than athletes in the control condition. In summary, the
13
researchers found that team goal setting was an effective team building tool for
influencing team cohesion.
Individual Behaviors and Cohesion
The coordination of the individual talents, values, and behaviors of athletes are
essential to the achievement of success. Values are core beliefs that guide behavior, form
the basis for goal setting and motivation, and serve to evaluate behavior (Rokeach, 1973).
Crace and Hardy (1997) introduced an intervention model focusing on a value-based
approach to team building. Eight steps were developed for the model so coaches can
have a clear understanding of individual values and differences. Step one was to
demonstrate the importance of understanding individual differences for enhanced
performance. Step two was to understand individual differences in an assessment phase.
Step three was understanding the interaction of values and life roles. Step four was
described as delineating team make-up, predominant characteristics of team. Step five
was determining factors that promote and interfere with team cohesion based on team and
individual profiles. Step six was to have an action plan in place to foster mutual respect.
Step seven was clarifying the working relationships within the coaches. The final step
was a follow-up and evaluation. The researchers concluded that this model should be
viewed as a process and a framework for understanding team dynamics and not the only
or all-inclusive framework.
Shields, Gardner, Bredemeier, and Bostro (1997) studied the relationship between
leadership behaviors and team cohesion. The subjects included 307 baseball and softball
athletes and 23 head coaches. The athletes completed a Leadership Scale for Sports
14
(LSS) and the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) while the coaches completed a
self perceived version of the LSS. Results showed that perceived and preferred leader
behaviors were related to team and task cohesion. Coaches were discovered to be more
task oriented in cohesion and the behavior of the coach may function to unify the team
around task goals.
Organizational citizenship behavior has been defined as “individual behavior that
is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal rewards system, and
that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ,
1988, p. 4). Aoyagi, Cox, and Mcguire (2008) introduced an organizational citizenship
behavior model and examined its utility to sport. The subjects consisted of 193 college
athletes who completed four questionnaires and found that organizational citizenship
behavior is a unique and meaningful measure of team effectiveness and cohesion in sport.
The researchers also concluded that these findings are significant that sport psychology
consultants and researchers are now offered a new and unique measure of finding
positive team behaviors to build team cohesion.
Cohesion and Performance
The cohesion-performance relationship is typically studied through the absolute
measure of win-loss ratio. The link between cohesion and performance has been studied
from numerous investigations which have led to conflicting results. Landers and Crum
(1971) used high school baseball players as subjects in a study to determine whether a
relationship existed between interpersonal relations, team success, and cohesiveness. The
study determined the effect of team position and team success on post-season measures
15
of inter-personal relations and cohesiveness when pre-season scores were covaried out.
A cohesiveness questionnaire was administered in the pre- and post- season to members
of 26 high school baseball teams. Results showed that ratings of infielders and
outfielders did not differ in the pre- and post-season, and did not interact with the team
success factor. Although the team success factor was also not significant for measures
derived from sociometric ratings and questions assessing team members' relationship to
their group, members of successful teams were found to indicate significantly more group
cohesiveness than members of unsuccessful teams on questions directly assessing total
group cohesiveness. The hypothesis that successful teams are more cohesive than
unsuccessful teams was supported.
Bakeman and Helmreich (1975) suggested that performance success in the work
environment could be a result of cohesiveness. The researchers defined work as fulfilling
or attempting to fulfill the subjects’ duties and identified group cohesion as interaction or
conversation during their duties. The authors investigated aquanauts in an underwater
environment and discovered that better work performance appeared to effect the
perception of group cohesion in a positive way. The researchers also reported variation
in cohesiveness accounts for some for the variation in performance. Cohesion scores
were divided into two segments. Performance averaged across all teams decreased
significantly, while cohesiveness averaged across all teams remained relatively constant
from the first segment to the last segment.
Widmeyer and Martens (1978) examined the relationship between basketball
ability and cohesion as determinants of performance success. The sample included
16
intramural basketball participants at the collegiate level. In examining the relationship
between basketball ability and cohesion as determinants of performance success, the
researchers hypothesized that greater cohesion would result in higher performance.
Support was found for their hypothesis only when cohesion was directly assessed, that is
when respondents were asked to rate the cohesion of their team and the value they place
on membership on that team. Nevertheless, the theory that cohesion has an influence on
performance success was once again supported, extending the generalization to include
basketball.
Gruber and Gray (1981) expanded the study of cohesion and basketball by
examining the existence of cohesion across several levels of competition ranging from
youth sports to collegiate sports. The six factors previously mentioned as antecedents of
cohesion were tested and it was hypothesized that certain cohesiveness factors exist in all
levels of basketball teams. The researchers found that a positive relationship did exist
with performance success across all levels of competition citing that two factors, team
performance satisfaction and task cohesion showed up at every level of basketball
competition.
Garland and Barry (1988) studied the effects of perceived leader behavior and its
effect on individual performance in college football players. Their findings were
consistent with the Multidimensional Model of Leadership which states athletic
performance is influenced by leader behaviors. Autocratic behavior was primarily
associated with performance; athletes who perceived their coach as being more autocratic
were related to lower performance levels. Athletes who perceived their coach as offering
17
more training and instruction, democratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback
were related to successful performance.
Slater and Sewell (1994) used the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) to
assess whether team cohesion in 60 university-level field hockey teams (3 men’s teams
and 3 women’s teams) was a cause for, or an effect of, successful performance. All of
the subjects were between the ages of 18-24 years of age and men (N=29) and women
(N=31) were represented. A quasi-experimental, longitudinal panel design with crosslagged correlational (CLC) analysis was used in the investigation. The GEQ was used to
assess each team’s level of cohesion midway through the season and later in the season.
The time between the two data collection sessions was approximately four weeks. The
participants were given directions to not be too situation- or time-specific during the
GEQ. The researchers hoped that this would satisfy the CLC assumption for
synchronicity between cohesion and performance measures. Additionally, the GEQ was
administered on the morning before a competition. The results showed a positive
relationship between team cohesion and performance outcome. The magnitude of the
early cohesion to later performance correlations indicated that higher cohesion was
associated with performance success.
Westre and Weiss (1991) found that high school football players (N=163) who
perceived their coaches as engaging in higher levels of social support, training and
instruction, positive feedback, and a democratic style were associated with higher levels
of task cohesion within their teams. The researchers used the GEQ as part of their
investigation, to measure perceptions of team cohesion. The Leadership Scale for Sports
18
was administered to assess the athletes’ perceptions of the coach’s leadership style and
behaviors. Multivariate multiple regression and canonical analyses revealed a significant
relationship between coaching behaviors and group cohesion. Coaches who were
perceived as engaging in high levels of social support, training and instruction, positive
feedback, and a democratic style were associated with higher levels of task cohesion
within their teams.
The existence of a cohesion and performance relationship have also included
some inconclusive results. Melnick and Chemers (1974) failed to find additional support
for this relationship. No relationship was found between performance success and
cohesion, which was attributed to the short amount of time the teams had been together,
indicating that the stability of a team over time exerts influence on the development of
cohesion. Lenk (1969) found that cohesion and performance success were negatively
related. A study of a German rowing team was conducted and found that a lack of
cohesion and the existence of internal conflicts over time led to increased performance.
Rather than the influence of cohesion, Lenk (1969) attributed the success of the team to
the role of the coach in maintaining the united pursuit of a common goal.
Coaching Staff Cohesion
Coaching staff cohesion is “the degree of teamwork among head and assistant
coaches that is derived from personal and professional factors and assists in developing a
pleasing work environment and fulfillment of the individual” (Martin, 2002. p. 26).
More recently, coaches have taken a larger role in the development of the physical and
mental growth of athletes. Coaches are specializing in the technical and strategic aspects
19
of sport and seeking effective means of professional development to increase the
opportunities for success. Individual sports such as golf, tennis, and swimming are often
coached by one coach. Team sports such as basketball, football, hockey, and baseball are
rarely coached by only one individual, but rather a pair or a group of coaches who will
direct the activities of a team on a daily basis. It is then logical to assume that a certain
level of cohesion between the coaches would be advantageous to the success of a team.
The athletes on a team of any competitive level directly observe the interactions of the
coaches on a daily basis and it is ideal that these athletes will model their coaches from
these interactions. Blackburn (1985) stated that “staff cohesion is a necessity if a head
coach wishes to develop team cohesion and ultimately insure success for the particular
team” (p. 93).
Several questions are raised in the discussion of coaching cohesion. Specifically,
why is the development of cohesion between coaches essential to the development of
team cohesion? How does coaching cohesion influence success? And, how can coaching
cohesion be developed? To address these issues, Blackburn (1985) proposed a threesystem program to develop cohesion within a coaching staff. The proposed system
included: the communication, the value, and the professional systems. In order to
enhance communication among coaches, Blackburn (1985) suggested that a head coach
keep an open door policy, involve the assistant coaches in goal setting, evaluate the
assistant coaches, and conduct frequent brainstorming sessions. The value system is the
commonalty of values exhibited by the coaching staff. Despite individual differences and
personalities, Blackburn (1985) asserted that “there must also be the common thread of
20
this value system woven through the idiosyncrasies and nuances of these unique
individuals known as the staff” (p. 95). Through selection processes to the social values
of the individual, a coaching staff will generally possess similar values. In the final stage
of the proposed system is the professional system. Blackburn (1985) emphasized that a
coaching position is essentially comprised of three factors: job responsibility, job status
and recognition, and professional development. In creating cohesion within a coaching
group, a clear definition of the duties and responsibilities of each member is essential.
These responsibilities should be communicated to all members of the coaching group
with the opportunity to perform these duties.
In an unpublished thesis, Martin (1997) tested coaching staff cohesion and
success of intercollegiate field hockey coaches. Thirty one coaching staffs that included
a head and assistant coach completed a revised version of the Multidimensional Sport
Cohesion Instrument and reported a win/loss record through a coaching questionnaire.
The results showed that head and assistant coaches did not differ on their perceptions of
their coaching staff cohesion. Also, the perceived levels of cohesion did not correlate
with the win/loss percentage. It was concluded that coaches who are more cohesive do
not appear to have teams that win more games.
At the time of the previous study, a valid tool was not available to measure
coaching staff cohesion. Martin (2002) examined the factors associated with the
development of coaching staff cohesion of collegiate head and assistant coaches to design
a coaching staff cohesion scale. Eight coaches and eight academic experts made up one
group of the study for content validity and created a scale based on three factors. The
21
second group for validation of the scale consisted of 484 collegiate head and assistant
coaches from nine different sports who completed the scale. Results showed that the
CSCS was a reliable tool for evaluating coaching staff cohesion. In conclusion, the
researcher explains that this scale should be a starting point for future research to
effectively assess coaching staff cohesion.
Recently, Zakrajsek, Abildso, Hurst, and Watson (2007) examined coaches’ and
athletes’ perceptions of coaching staff cohesion (CSC) and their relationships with team
cohesion and performance. A total of 18 collegiate teams including coaches and athletes
participated in the study. Coaches completed the Coaching Staff Cohesion Scale (CSCS).
The athletes completed a modified CSCS, a Group Environment Questionnaire, and an
item of perceived team performance which had the athletes’ rate their performance on a
scale of 1 (very poorly) to 10 (very good). Significant differences were found between
athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions of CSC. Overall, coaches’ perceptions of coaching
staff cohesion were higher than athletes’ perceptions of cohesion among the coaching
staff.
Measurements of Team Cohesion
Prior to 1972, researchers differed in how they measured cohesion because there
was no established definition that could be used as a guide to standardize an assessment
tool (Wallin, 2003). Due to the lack of a clear definition of cohesion, numerous
assessments have been used to evaluate cohesion. The Sport Cohesiveness
Questionnaire, the Group Environment Questionnaire, and the Multidimensional Sport
Cohesion Instrument are all considered to be valid and reliable tools to assess cohesion.
22
Sport Cohesiveness Questionnaire
Martens and Peterson (1971) were the first researchers to develop a sport specific
measurement of cohesion called the Sport Cohesiveness Questionnaire (SCQ). The SCQ
is a seven-item questionnaire and was generally upheld as being a satisfactory direct
measure of team cohesion. The instrument assessed an individual’s feelings of the
attractiveness for every other member. The tool also assessed members’ feelings of the
attractiveness of the group as a whole and members’ perception for the group closeness
and teamwork. In spite of its widespread use in early group cohesion research, the SCQ
remained psychometrically untested, and of its seven aspects, only ‘teamwork’ was not
attraction oriented (Carron, 1982). This measurement was not developed from a
conceptual model which led to the question of validity.
Multidimensional Sport Cohesion Instrument
Yukelson et al. (1984) created the Multidimensional Sport Cohesion Instrument
(MSCI) which is currently a less frequently utilized scale of cohesion. The MSCI is a 22item questionnaire, designed to measure the forces attracting an individual to an
interacting sport team and to provide support for previous findings indicating that
cohesion is a multidimensional construct. Quality of team work, attraction to the group,
unity of purpose and valued roles are four factors of cohesion that are rated on an 11point Likert scale. The MSCI was one of the first related measures of cohesion that
acknowledges that cohesion is a multidimensional construct containing both task and
social dimensions (Carron et al., 1998).
23
Group Environment Questionnaire
Widmeyer, Brawley, and Carron (1985) developed the Group Environment
Questionnaire (GEQ) which reflected the multidimensional nature of cohesion. The GEQ
has a conceptual basis influenced by two cohesion related issues; the need to distinguish
between the individual and the group, and also the need to distinguish between the social
and task concerns of the group and its members (Widmeyer et al., 1985). The GEQ
proposes that group members possess views of what personally attracts them to the group
and how the group functions as a total unit (Slater & Sewell, 1994). Four related factors
that bind members to the team were indentified. First, Individual Attractions to the
Group-Social (ATG-S) is an individual team member’s feelings about his or her personal
involvement, acceptance and social interaction within the group. Second, Individual
Attractions to the Group-Task (ATG-T) is an individual team member’s feelings about
his or her involvement with the group task, productivity, and goals and objectives. Third,
Group Integration-Social (GI-S) is an individual team member’s feelings about the
similarity, closeness and bonding within the team around the group as a social unit. Last,
Group Integration-Task (GI-T) is an individual team member’s feelings about the
similarity and bonding within the team as a whole around the group’s task. The GEQ is
comprised of 18 items, rated on a nine-point likert scale, that measures the four aspects of
the assessment (ATG-S, ATG-T, GI-S, and GI-T). The GEQ remains as one of the more
popular assessment tools in measuring team cohesion and group dynamics.
24
Coaching Staff Cohesion Scale
Carron (1982) developed a multidimensional definition of team cohesion as “a
dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain
united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member
affective needs” (p. 135). With this definition leading the way for current research, the
Coaching Staff Cohesion Scale (CSCS) was created. Martin (2002) defined coaching
staff cohesion as “the degree of teamwork among head and assistant coaches that is
derived from personal and professional factors and assists in developing a pleasing work
environment and fulfillment of the individual” (p. 26). Brawley (1990) and Martin
(2002) suggested that athletic teams model the behaviors and level of cohesion
demonstrated by their coaching staff. Therefore, developing unity among a coaching
staff may be critical in building cohesion among members of an athletic team (Blackburn,
1985). Although theoretically driven, the suggestion that coaching staff cohesion, team
cohesion, and success “may be interrelated and collectively influential” (Martin, 2002, p.
40), few studies have tested this theory. The Coaching Staff Cohesion Scale (CSCS),
developed by Martin (2002), is a 22-item questionnaire designed to examine coaching
staff cohesion among collegiate head and assistant coaches. The CSCS measures three
factors of coaching staff cohesion: staff attraction, shared values, and staff unity.
Interpretation and scores on the three CSCS subscales are obtained by averaging the
responses from the items within each subscale. A total score of coaching staff cohesion
is obtained by summing the three subscale mean scores. Staff attraction (SA) represents
personal and professional interest in coaching a team and the desire to be a part of that
25
particular coaching staff. Staff unity (SU) reflects the coaching staff’s ability to work
together and achieve team objectives. This synergy among the coaching staff applies to
communication, role clarity, decision making, support, responsibility, and accountability.
Shared values (SV) are defined as “the congruency of coaches in their ethical and
philosophical behaviors as related to team, community, and professional responsibilities”
(Martin, 2002, p.29). Shared values apply to staff agreement on issues related to
coaching philosophies, discipline, role modeling, and coaching and playing styles.
Summary
The impact of the cohesion of athletes on performance success has been the
primary focus of research to date. Other relationships existing on an athletic team,
however, have the capacity of creating a powerful influence over the stability and
cohesion of the group. One relationship is that of the coaches to one another. Few
studies have been conducted to examine this relationship and these studies have shown
varying results. Considering the influence that coaches have over a team, it is possible
that the levels of cohesion between the head and assistant coaches may influence
performance success of athletic teams. According to Gruber and Gray (1982),
“basketball coaches seek internal harmony among team members so that efforts may be
concentrated on effective team play and if possible a winning season” (p. 27). Although
specified for basketball, this concept potentially describes the goals of coaches of all
sports and effectively illustrates the concept of cohesion. The amount of teamwork and
closeness among members of athletic teams can have a variety of influences on
performance success from contributing to greater performance success (Gruber & Gray,
26
1981; Landers & Crum, 1971; Martens & Peterson, 1971; Widmeyers & Martens, 1978)
to no relationship at all (Melnick & Chemers, 1974). Additionally, Lenk (1969) found
that intense internal conflict among teammates and low levels of cohesion might
positively influence success. The lack of recent research supporting Melnick and
Chemers (1974) and Lenk (1969) lends greater support to findings supporting the positive
relationship between cohesion and performance success. Considering the influence and
power coaches have over an athletic team, it is possible that the degree of cohesion
between the head and assistant coaches may exert an influence over the performance
success of the team.
27
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
It has been proposed that there is a significant relationship between team cohesion
and successful performance (Bakeman & Helmreich, 1975; Garland & Barry, 1988;
Gruber & Gray, 1981; Landers & Crum 1971; Slater & Sewell, 1994; Westre & Weiss,
1991; Widmeyer & Martens, 1978). Blackburn (1985) also stated that “staff cohesion is
a necessity if a head coach wishes to develop team cohesion and ultimately insure success
for the particular team” (p. 93). This investigation was designed to examine the
relationship between coaching staff cohesion and success of California Community
College football teams using the Coaching Staff Cohesion Scale. Success was recorded
by win/loss records at the end of the regular season.
Participants
Sixteen head football coaches and their assistants from the Northern California
Football Association representing the California Community College Athletic
Association (CCCAA) were invited to participate in the study. The CCCAA is a member
of the California Community College Commission on Athletics (COA) and operates
under COA jurisdiction. The CCCAA establishes and oversees the enforcement of the
rules and regulations and serves to guide the administration of the intercollegiate athletic
programs of the California community colleges. Of the 16 coaching staffs who were
invited to participate in the study, only six agreed to participate. Although the total
number of assistants per program varies, the sampling of the subjects had between five to
28
ten assistants who work for each program. A total of 40 assistant coaches agreed to
participate in the study. Informed consent was obtained from the head coaches prior to
administration of the measuring instrument.
Measurement
The Coaching Staff Cohesion Scale (CSCS) (Martin, 2002) is a 22-item
questionnaire designed to examine coaching staff cohesion among collegiate head and
assistant coaches. A 7-point Likert-type scale is used to assess coaches’ responses
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The CSCS measures three
factors of coaching staff cohesion: staff attraction (7 items); shared values (4 items); and
staff unity (11 items). Interpretation and scores on the three CSCS subscales are obtained
by averaging the responses from the items within each subscale. A total score of
coaching staff cohesion is obtained by summing the three subscale mean scores. Scores
on the CSCS can range from 3 to 21, with higher scores indicating higher perceptions of
coaching staff cohesion. Staff attraction (SA) represents personal and professional
interest in coaching a team and the desire to be a part of the coaching staff. Staff unity
(SU) reflects the coaching staff’s ability to work together and achieve team objectives.
This synergy among the coaching staff applies to communication, role clarity, decision
making, support, responsibility, and accountability. Shared values (SV) are defined as
“the congruency of coaches in their ethical and philosophical behaviors as related to
team, community, and professional responsibilities” (Martin, 2002, p.29). Shared values
apply to staff agreement on issues related to coaching philosophies, discipline, role
modeling, and coaching and playing styles.
29
Win/loss records were recorded at the end of each teams’ regular season. These
records were also obtained from the California Community College Athletic Association
(CCCAA) website.
Procedures
The sampling for this study consisted of coaching staffs within the Northern
California Football Association and are all CCCAA institutions sponsoring football in
California. The list compiled of schools was taken from the CCCAA website. Formal
letters were sent by electronic mail requesting permission for the coaches to participate.
The questionnaires were administered by the researcher for those coaching staffs that
preferred to have the researcher present during data collection. Coaching staffs who
preferred to complete the questionnaire by mail were sent a package filled with the
questionnaires and the procedures to fill them out. All participants were notified by the
investigator that the general purpose of this study is to assess the coaching staff cohesion
and the success rates of each team. They were also assured that all information would be
confidential and results will only be examined by the researcher. Win/loss records were
then recorded at the end of the regular season using the CCCAA website.
Data Collection
The data was collected by two different methods. Four coaching staffs preferred
to participate in the study by mail whereas the other two coaching staffs had the
questionnaire administered in person by the researcher. For those participating by mail, a
packet was sent out to the head coach for the coaching staffs to complete. The packet
contained an introductory/instruction letter, the questionnaires, individual envelopes for
30
the coaches to conceal their answers in, a separate envelope for the head coach to insert
his answers in, and a return envelope for the questionnaires to be returned to the
researcher. The coaching staffs that the researcher administered the tests to were given
the same instructions as the previous coaches. The participants gathered in the main
football offices and filled out their questionnaires. When completed, the questionnaires
were handed back to the researcher and placed in a 10X12 yellow envelope. The head
coach placed his answers in a standard envelope to keep separate from the assistants. At
the end of the regular season, win/loss records were gathered from the CCCAA website
and were recorded for the teams.
The data was input into a Microsoft Excel worksheet for calculating Independent
Samples t-Tests with the use of a computer. Statistical calculations were also computed
using the Microsoft Excel program to determine the differences between head and
assistant coach cohesion levels. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were
used to analyze the differences between cohesion according to win/loss records at the end
of the regular season.
Data Analysis
The researcher interpreted the results using the original 1 to 7 point likert scale.
The score for each coach was computed by summing each individual subscale of the
questionnaire and computing a mean average. The total mean score from each subscale
was summed for a total cohesion score. Differences between head and assistant coaches
were summed and given a total overall difference score. The head and assistant coaches’
scores were then given a mean average where cohesion was measured according to the
31
win/loss records that were recorded at the end of the regular season. A winning
percentage was calculated and given to each team according to their respective records.
Correlation between winning percentage and cohesion levels were then examined for
analysis.
32
Chapter 4
RESULTS
The present study sought to determine the relationship between coaching staff
cohesion and success of California Community College football teams. It was
hypothesized that there would be no significant differences in cohesion levels between
head and assistant coaches, and there would be no significant differences in cohesion
levels according to each teams win/loss record.
Head and Assistant Coaches Cohesion Level
The tables below breakdown the differences between head and assistant coaches
cohesion levels. Overall scores between the subjects are described in table one followed
by the three subscales of the coaching staff cohesion analysis in tables two through four.
Table 1
t-Test for Head and Assistant Coaches
Mean
Variance
Observations
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Head Coach
18.1
0.88
6
10
1.608799333
0.071060666
1.833112923
0.142121333
2.232157158
Asst. Coaches
18.83333333
0.366666667
6
33
Table 2
t-Test for Staff Attraction Subscale
Mean
Variance
Observations
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Head
5.81667
0.40567
6
5
-2.0047
0.05066
2.01505
0.10133
2.57058
Assistant
6.35
0.019
6
Table 3
t-Test for Staff Unity Subscale
Mean
Variance
Observations
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Head
6.21667
0.12567
6
10
-9.845
0.5
1.83311
1
2.26216
Assistant
6.21667
0.06967
6
34
Table 4
t-Test for Shared Values Subscale
Mean
Variance
Observations
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Head
6.06667
0.38267
6
10
-0.7755
0.23171
1.89458
0.46342
2.36462
Assistant
6.28333
0.08567
6
The first hypothesis stated that there would be no significant difference in
coaching staff cohesion between head and assistant coaches. This was indeed the case
for cohesion in all the coaches and in all three subscales of the CSCS. The independent
sample t-test (table 1) revealed that no significant mean differences were found in
cohesion levels between head and assistant coaches, t=2.23 (2, 12), p<.05. Furthermore,
mean scores were compared of the three subscales for the paired groups of head and
assistant football coaches and the results showed no significant differences (p<.05).
These results suggest that head and assistant coaches share similar interests in the three
subscales (staff attraction, staff unity, and shared values) of the CSCS.
35
Total Team Cohesion Levels Win/Loss Record
The following tables show the statistical analysis of total team cohesion levels as
they relate to win/loss percentage. Total coaching staff cohesion score is shown in table
one followed by head and assistant coaches scores in tables six and seven.
Table 5
Pearson Product Moment Correlations for Overall Team Win/Loss Record
Overall Teams
Multiple R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Standard Error
Observations
0.232456858
0.054036191
-0.182454761
0.497917009
6
Table 6
Pearson Product Moment Correlations for Head Coaches
Head Coaches
Multiple R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Standard Error
Observations
0.123781085
0.015321757
-0.2308478
1.040743036
6
36
Table 7
Pearson Product Moment Correlations for Assistant Coaches
Assistant Coaches
Multiple R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Standard Error
Observations
0.166192721
0.02762002
-0.215474974
0.667588314
6
The second hypothesis stated that there would be no significant differences in
coaching staff cohesion levels according to win/loss records. The data appears to
support this hypothesis. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed
to determine the relationship between the perceived level of cohesion for the overall
score when the data from the head and assistant coaches were combined as correlated
with the win/loss percentage of the football teams. The correlation between win/loss
percentage and the perceived level of coaching staff cohesion was not significantly
different (p<.05) for overall coaching staff scores (r = .232; r² = .054).
The tables shown above were looking for a correlation between coaching staff
cohesion and win/loss percentage. The statistical analysis described in the tables shows
that one variable does not predict the other. In summary, the results of this study showed
that the levels of perceived cohesion within a coaching staff do not show a relationship to
a more successful team. Furthermore, the perceived cohesion levels of a coaching staff
do not correlate to a better win/loss record for a team. The hypotheses of the study are
accepted and supported by the current data.
37
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
The primary purpose of this investigation was to examine coaching staff cohesion
levels in California Community College Football teams. The head and assistant coaches
of the football teams did not differ in their perceptions of cohesion. A second purpose
was to determine whether the perceived levels of cohesion correlated to a teams win/loss
percentage. Of the head and assistant coaches in this study, the degree of perceived
cohesion was not related to a higher win/loss percentage.
The effectiveness of sport teams in competition is dependent upon many factors.
The ability of team members to work well together is one of those factors. Team
cohesion is an important aspect in the development of teams and the cohesion between
coaches should be considered as well. Research to date has mostly been studied from the
athletes perception of team cohesion, but many agree that the greater the perception of
cohesion among the members of an athletic team, the greater success that team will have
(Carron & Chelladurai, 1981; Landers & Crum, 1971; Widmeyer & Martens, 1978;
Williams & Hacker, 1982).
Research related to coaching staff cohesion have not yielded many studies so a
strong comparison of these results do not exist. Martin (1997) appears to be the first to
investigate coaching staff cohesion. Coaches from 30 Division I, II, and III field hockey
teams participated to examine cohesion between the coaching staffs. Although no
measurement was available to measure coaching staff cohesion at the time, analysis using
38
repeated measures MANOVA showed no significant differences between head and
assistant coaches according to the four subscales of the Multidimensional Sport Cohesion
Instrument. Martin (1997) also found that win/loss percentage was not significantly
correlated with the perceived level of cohesion. Scores from the Multidimensional Sport
Cohesion Instrument were compared to win/loss percentage at the end of the regular
season. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed to determine
the relationship between the perceived level of cohesion for the overall score when the
data from the head and assistant coaches were combined as correlated with the win/loss
percentage of their teams. It was concluded that the win/loss percentage had no
significant difference to cohesion levels.
It is also important to note that cohesion, in the past, has primarily been studied
from the athletes’ point of view and not so much from a coaching staff point of view.
More recently, a study examined coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of coaching staff
cohesion and their relationships with team cohesion and performance (Zakrajsek et al.,
2007). While this does provide coaching staff cohesion data, the study approaches
cohesion from the athletes perception.
While the differences in perceptions of coaching staff cohesion has not been
studied extensively to date, a similar design has been applied to cohesion constructs for
starters and nonstarters in high school and college football teams. Granito and Rainey
(1988) utilized a two-way analysis variance to determine cohesion levels of starters and
nonstarters on their football teams. This study found that starters and nonstarters of high
school and college football teams did not appear to differ in their perceptions of cohesion.
39
The lack of significant differences in head and assistant coaches from this study
corresponds with these findings. While the positions of head and assistant football
coaches are not synonymous with the starter and nonstarter comparison, based on the role
differences of the groups, the conceptual basis is similar when situational factors are
involved (Martin, 1997).
Originally, the number of years a coaching staff had been together was going to
be examined. A number of assistant coaches failed to indicate how many years they were
a member of the staff so this part of the study was not investigated. Even though the
longevity of the coaching staffs was not analyzed in this study, the length of time a
coaching staff have been together should be considered for team cohesion levels.
Theories of team cohesion indicate the stability of a team over time exerts a positive
influence on the level of cohesion (Melnick & Chemers, 1974). This refers to the longer
athletes or coaches work together on the same team, the greater the chance that cohesion
will develop. This remains a popular theory in cohesion between athletes and should
hold true for coaching staffs. The development of coaching staff cohesion over time may
become strained due to coaches coming and going within the teams. Stability for a
coaching staff is a major obstacle in building cohesion and members of the staff may
change every season.
Another variable not examined in this study was the amount of coaching
experience each coach brings to the team. In the sport of football, assistant coaches are
very involved in the team cohesion building process. Knowledge of the sport and playing
experience may influence the effectiveness of a coach which can lead to greater cohesion
40
levels. The athletes perceptions of a particular coaches experience might also effect the
level of coaching staff cohesion.
One observation that was noticed were the number of head coaches who had
lower levels of perceived cohesion for their staff. Of the six coaching staffs that were
observed, four head coaches had lower percieved levels of cohesion than their assistant
coaches. Of the remaining two head coaches, one head coach had a higher perception of
cohesion than the assitants and one head coach had the same perception of cohesion as
the assistants. One possible factor that may have contributed to these differences in
cohesion levels could be the years the coaching staff have been together. It is percieved
that the longer athletes compete together on the same team, the more likely cohesion will
develop. This could also be true for a coaching staff.
While coaching staff cohesion was the primary focus for the success of the team,
other variables in this investigation may have an influence over the success of the team.
One variable is the physical skill and attributes of the athletes on the football teams. It is
widely theorized that the more talented players a team has, the more successful they will
be. Cohesion may have an influence on success rates but this may also facilitate the
channeling of the physical skills of the athletes that contribute to success. While the
development of cohesion may not ensure success, it may influence the perception of
cohesion within members of that team.
When selecting assistant coaches for their teams, head coaches are given more
opportunities to select coaches of their choosing. In theory, when choosing an assistant
coach, the head coach may choose someone who shares similar ideas and theories. When
41
selecting a coach with similar coaching attributes, a cohesion may already exist. This
practice should prove beneficial to increasing the win/loss percentage of a football team
based on the program suggested by Blackburn (1985). However, the results of this study
show the level of cohesion between coaches do not appear to influence the success of the
team. Thus, some of the arguments from the area of team cohesion do not appear to
transfer to coaching staff cohesion.
To summarize, head and assistant coaches of California Community College
football teams do not appear to differ in their perceptions of coaching staff cohesion. The
influence of coaching staff cohesion on the win/loss record of a team is one way for
researchers to examine team cohesion. Success is often comprised of much more than
simply the win/loss record of a team. The ways in which coaches and athletes perceive
success may not be consistent across all sports and all teams. Coaching staff cohesion
may have a greater impact in other areas of team success. For example, a cohesive
coaching staff relationship is likely to improve goal setting by attaining achievable goals
and possibly boost team morale. Perceptions of success is different for all teams and
coaching staffs and should not always be examined from the win/loss record.
The findings of the study may provide valuable information for coaches in all
sports, sport psychology consultants, and athletic directors when selecting new coaches.
A staffs particular behavior should resemble a unified group committed to the success of
the team. While Blackburns’ (1985) suggestion of a three-system program to develop
cohesion within a coaching staff (communication, value, and professional systems) is
42
logically applicable, the degree of cohesion between coaches did not seem to influence
the win/loss record percentage of the football teams in this study.
This particular study can also be examined from an athletic administration point
of view. While some schools hire assistant coaches without the head coaches consent,
certain benefits arise from permitting the head coach to select their assistants. Time and
expense can be saved when searching for an appropriate candidate for a coaching
position but a thorough employment search should not be neglected. The assistant who is
most qualified for the job and will complement the personality and goals of the head
coach are a few priorities to consider when selecting an appropriate assistant.
For coaching staffs that have low perceptions of cohesion, the researcher suggests
strategies and techniques that should be aimed at developing a healthy and positive
environment. Role clarity should be promoted and accepted to help enhance cohesion
and satisfaction among coaches in a particular staff. Coaches who engage in higher
levels of social support, positive feedback, a democratic coaching style, and team
building processes can enhance the levels of cohesion within the staff. Ultimately, the
cohesion that the coaching staff displays should reflect the athletes levels of cohesion.
Applying the method of this study to other sport groups should be encouraged and
supported when looking at team cohesion. Assessing cohesion levels of coaches of
individual sports, teams within only one assistant, and teams of different sizes could
contribute to the development of coaching cohesion. Studying the athlete’s perceptions
of a coaching staffs cohesion and whether they feel this relationship impacts the success
of the team has recently been studied (Zakrajsek et al., 2007) and should also be
43
encouraged for future studies to add more knowledge to the perception of coaching staff
cohesion. Another study that can be looked at is whether the athlete’s cohesion levels
model the cohesion levels of their coaching staffs. Coaches are the primary role models
of their teams and more often an athlete would most likely follow the behaviors of their
coaches.
This examination was attempted to further add data to the limited knowledge of
coaching staff cohesion. To this researchers knowledge, only two studies have been done
to explore this idea that coaching staff cohesion can lead to greater success of a team
(Martin, 1997, Zakrajsek et al., 2007). Hopefully, this investigation can help coaches
from all sports and all levels develop a better understanding of how team cohesion may
affect success rates of their teams. There is much to be researched in this area of team
cohesion and more extensive studies should be encouraged.
44
APPENDIX A
Letter of Invitation
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SCHOOL OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF KINESIOLOGY
My name is Rusty Price and I am currently a graduate student at CSU Sacramento. I am
conducting my Masters thesis study on coaching staff cohesion and success of
community college football teams and would like to use you and your coaching staff as
subjects in the study. The extent of your participation would be to complete the
Coaching Staff Cohesion Scale which is a 22-item questionnaire designed to examine
coaching staff cohesion among collegiate head and assistant coaches. This questionnaires
will be sent by U.S. Mail and should only take 5-10 minutes to complete and all answers
will be kept confidential. The deadline to participate is October 17, 2009 so the
questionnaires will have to be administered before then. I know your season has begun
and your time is valuable but I would really appreciate your support to provide new data
on coaching staff cohesion. If you would like more information on the study or have any
questions, please don’t hesitate to write me back or call me at 916-XXX-XXXX. I’d be
more than happy to answer any questions or concerns that you may have. Good luck this
season and hope to hear from you soon.
Thank You,
Rusty Price
Graduate Student
45
APPENDIX B
Instructions for Administering CSCS
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SCHOOL OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF KINESIOLOGY
Coach,
Here are the questionnaires for you and your staff. Please instruct the staff to fill out the
questionnaire as honest as possible. When they are finished, have them fold them up and
seal them in the envelopes that are attached to their questionnaires. The envelopes are
there to keep their answers confidential and anonymous. I would like to keep the head
coach questionnaire separate from the assistants so please insert your questionnaire in the
white envelope marked head coach. A return envelope with postage is also included in
this packet so when you and your staff have completed the questionnaires, please mail
them back to me as soon as you can. Any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Once again, thank you so much. By helping me out with my thesis you will be providing
new data for team cohesion and some new information about coaching staff cohesion.
Take care and good luck this season,
Rusty Price
Graduate Student
46
APPENDIX C
Coaching Staff Cohesion Scale
After reading each of the following items, consider how it relates to your coaching staff.
Circle the number which best represents your true feeling about each question.
Strongly
Disagree
1
Strongly
Agree
2
3
4
5
6
1. I like the people on the coaching staff
2. The coaching staff is committed to the long term
success of the team.
3. Considering the coaching staff, I am satisfied with
being a coach of this team because I like the people
I work with.
4. I feel a strong sense of personal belonging to this staff.
5. The coaching staff generally agrees on the best way
to work together.
6. The coaches share similar coaching philosophies.
7. Coaches of this team agree on ethical standards.
8. I generally enjoy coaching this particular team because
of the other coaches.
9. I agree with the coaching style of this staff.
10. The members of the coaching staff know what is
expected of them.
11. I enjoy coaching this team because the coaches
usually get along.
12. The coaching staff usually sticks together.
13. I feel like an accepted member of the coaching staff.
14. We agree on team goals.
15. I want to continue being a part of this coaching staff.
16. We agree on what to do to reach our team goals.
17. The coaches agree on strategy.
18. Communication between the coaches is clear.
19. The coaches are encouraged to express their opinions.
20. We agree on where the boundaries between
student-athletes and the coaching staff should be set.
21. Each coach is critical to the success of the team.
22. We work well together to overcome obstacles the
team is facing.
7
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
47
APPENDIX D
Subjects Mean Scores
Head and Assistant Coaches Cohesion Levels
Teams
Head Coach
1
2
3
4
5
6
Totals
19.4
16.9
18
18.7
17.2
18.4
18.1
Assistants
Mean
17.9
18.9
19.8
18.7
18.8
18.9
18.8
Head/Asst
Difference
1.5
-2.0
-1.8
0
-1.6
-.3
-.7
SD
2.1
1.79
1.19
.95
1.23
1.20
.84
Staff Attraction Subscale
Teams
Head Coach
1
2
3
4
5
6
Totals
6.7
4.8
5.8
6.1
5.5
6
5.8
Assistants
Mean
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
Head/Asst
Difference
.5
-1.6
-.8
-.2
-.8
-.3
-.5
SD
Head/Asst
Difference
.2
-.5
0
.1
.2
0
-.1
SD
.48
.84
.45
.59
.41
.38
.52
Staff Unity Subscale
Teams
Head Coach
1
2
3
4
5
6
Totals
6
5.7
6.5
6.2
6.7
6.2
6.2
Assistants
Mean
5.8
6.2
6.5
6.1
6.5
6.2
6.3
1.00
.81
.41
.63
.39
.47
.29
48
APPENDIX D continued
Shared Values Subscale
Teams
Head Coach
1
2
3
4
5
6
Totals
6.7
6.4
5.7
6.4
5
6.2
6.1
Assistants
Mean
5.9
6.4
6.7
6.3
6
6.4
6.3
Head/Asst
Difference
.8
0
-1
.1
-1
-.2
-.2
SD
.97
.35
.42
.38
.64
.35
.47
Total Team Cohesion Levels Win/Loss Record
Teams
1
2
3
4
5
6
Totals
Team Total Mean
18.2
18.7
19.6
18.8
18.6
18.8
18.8
Win/Loss Record
6-4
6-4
7-3
5-5
5-5
2-8
31-29
Win/Loss %
.600
.600
.700
.500
.500
.200
.516
Staff Attraction Subscale
Teams
1
2
3
4
5
6
Totals
Team Total Mean
6.3
6.1
6.5
6.3
6.1
6.3
6.3
Win/Loss Record
6-4
6-4
7-3
5-5
5-5
2-8
31-29
Win/Loss %
.600
.600
.700
.500
.500
.200
.516
49
APPENDIX D continued
Staff Unity Subscale
Teams
1
2
3
4
5
6
Totals
Team Total Mean
5.8
6.2
6.5
6.1
6.4
6.1
6.2
Win/Loss Record
6-4
6-4
7-3
5-5
5-5
2-8
31-29
Win/Loss %
.600
.600
.700
.500
.500
.200
.516
Shared Values Subscale
Teams
1
2
3
4
5
6
Totals
Team Total Mean
6.1
6.4
6.6
6.4
6.1
6.4
6.3
Win/Loss Record
6-4
6-4
7-3
5-5
5-5
2-8
31-29
Win/Loss %
.600
.600
.700
.500
.500
.200
.516
50
APPENDIX E
Pearson Product Moment Correlations Scores
Teams
Multiple R
R Squared
Head
Assistant
Totals
.123
.166
.232
.015
.027
.054
Adjusted R
Squared
-0.23
-0.215
-0.18
Standard
Error
1.04
0.667
0.497
51
REFERENCES
Anshel, M. H. (1994). Sport psychology from theory to practice (2nd ed.). Scottsdale,
AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Aoyagi, M. W., Cox, R. H., & McGuire, R. T. (2008). Organizational citizenship
behavior in sport: Relationships with leadership, team cohesion, and athlete
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 25-41.
Bakeman, R., & Helmreich, R. (1975). Cohesiveness and performance: Covariation and
causality in an undersea environment. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 11, 478-489.
Bird, A. M. (1977). Team structure and success as related to cohesiveness and
leadership. The Journal of Social Psychology, 103, 217-223.
Blackburn, J. (1985). Systematic program for the development of staff cohesion. In
L. K. Bunker, R. J. Rotella, & A. S. Reilly (Eds.). Sport psychology:
Psychological considerations for maximizing sport performance (pp. 93-100).
Ann Arbor, MI: McNaughton & Gunn.
Brawley, L. R. (1990). Group cohesion, status, problems, and future directions.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 355-379.
Brawley, L.R., Carron, A.V., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1992). The nature of group goals in
sport teams: A phenomenological analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 323-333.
Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpresentations and
considerations. Journal of Psychology, 4, 123-138.
52
Carron, A. V. (1993). The sport team as an effective group. In J. M. Williams (Ed.),
Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (pp. 110-121).
Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of
cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advancements in sport and
exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213–226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Carron, A. V., & Chelladurai, P. (1981). The dynamics of group cohesion in sport.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 123–139.
Carron, A. V., & Dennis, P. W. (1998). The sport team as an effective group. In J. M.
Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance
(pp. 127–141). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an
instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7,
244–266.
Crace, R. K., & Hardy, C. J. (1997). Individual values and the team building process.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 41-60.
Dawson, K.A., Bray, S.R., & Widmeyer, W.N. (2002). Goal setting by intercollegiate
sport teams and athletes. AVANTE, 8, 14-24.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressure in informal groups.
New York: Harper & Row.
53
Garland, D.J., & Barry, J.R. (1988). The effects of personality and perceived leader
behavior on performance in college football. The Psychological Record, 38, 237247.
Gill, D. L., & Clifton, R. T. (1995). Cohesiveness and performance in sport teams. In
K. P. Henschen & W. F. Straub (Eds.). Sport psychology: An analysis of athlete
behavior (3rd ed.) (pp. 371-382). Longmeadow, MA: Mouvement.
Granito, V.J., & Rainey, D.W. (1988). Difference in cohesion between high school and
and college level football teams and starters and nonstarters. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 66, 471-477.
Gruber, J. J., & Gray, G. R. (1981). Factor patterns and variables influencing
cohesiveness at various levels of basketball competition. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 52 (1), 19-30.
Hall, E. G. (1985). Team cohesiveness: Composition and success. In L. K. Bunker, R.
J. Rotella, & A.S. Reilly (Eds.), Sport psychology: Psychological considerations
for maximizing sport performance (pp. 83-87). Ann Arbor, MI: McNaughton &
Gunn.
Landers, D. M., & Crum, T. F. (1971). The effect of team success and formal structure on
inter-personal relations and cohesiveness of baseball teams. International Journal
of Sport Psychology, 2, 88–96.
Landers, D. M., Wilkinson, M. O., Hatfield, B. D., & Barber, H. (1982). Causality and
the cohesion-performance relationship. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 170-183.
54
Lenk, H. (1969). Top performance despite internal conflict: An antithesis to a
functionalistic proposition. In A. C. Fischer (Ed.), Psychology of sport: Issues
and insights (pp. 70–74). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Martin, K. A. (1997). Coaching staff cohesion and success of intercollegiate field hockey
teams. Unpublished master’s thesis, Springfield College, Springfield, MA.
Martin, K. A. (2002). Development and validation of the coaching staff cohesion scale.
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 6, 23-42.
Martens, R., & Peterson, J.A. (1971). Group cohesiveness as a determinant of success
and member satisfaction in team performance. International Review of Sport
Sociology, 6, 49-61.
Melnick, M. J., & Chemers, M. M. (1974). Effects of group social structure on the
success of basketball teams. Research Quarterly, 45, 1–8.
Murray, M. M. (1985). Cooperation and cohesiveness: Setting a winning personal
environment. In L. K. Bunker, R. J. Rotella, & A. S. Reilly (Eds.), Sport
psychology: Psychological considerations for maximizing sport performance (pp.
88-91). Ann Arbor, MI: McNaughton & Gunn.
Myers, A. (1969). Team competition, success and the adjustment of group members. In
J. W. Loy, G. S. Kenyon, & B. D. McPherson (Eds.). Sport, culture and society:
A reader on the sociology of sport (pp. 397-408). London: MacMillan.
Organ, D., W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
55
Senecal, J., Loughead, T. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2008). A season-long team-building
intervention: Examining the effect of team goal setting on cohesion. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 186-199.
Shields, D. L. L., Gardner, D. E., Bredemeier, B. J. L., Bostro, A. (1997). The
relationship between leadership behaviors and group cohesion in team sports. The
Journal of Psychology, 131(2), 196-210.
Slater, M. R., & Sewell, D. F. (1994). An examination of the cohesion-performance
relationship in university hockey teams. Journal of Sport Sciences, 12, 423-431.
Wallin, J. M. (2003). The influence of team cohesion and coach behavior on individual
performance. Unpublished master’s thesis, CSU Sacramento, Sacramento, CA.
Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (1995). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Westre, K.R., & Weiss, M.R. (1991). The relationship between perceived coaching
behaviors and group cohesion in high school football teams. The Sport
Psychologist, 5, 41-54.
Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1985). The measurement of
cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. London,
Ontario: Sport Dynamics.
Widmeyer, W. N., & Ducharme, K. (1997). Team building through team goal setting.
Journal Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 97-113.
Widmeyer, W. N., & Martens, R. (1978). When cohesion predicts performance outcome
in sport. Research Quarterly, 49, 372–380.
56
Williams, J. M., & Hacker, C. M. (1982). Causal relationships among cohesion,
satisfaction and performance in women’s intercollegiate field hockey teams.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 324–337.
Williams, J. M., & Martens, R. (1978). When cohesion predicts performance outcome
in sport. The Research Quarterly, 49 (3), 372-380.
Williams, J. M., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1991). The cohesion-outcome relationship in
coacting sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 13, 364–371.
Yukelson, D., Weinberg, R., & Jackson, A. (1984). A multidimensional group cohesion
instrument for intercollegiate basketball teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6,
103–117.
Zakrajsek, R. A., Abildso, C. G., Hurst, J.R., & Watson, J.C. (2007). The relationships
among coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of coaching staff cohesion, team
cohesion, and performance. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from
http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol9Iss3/CoachingStaffCohesionPDF.pdf
Zander, A. (1971). Motives and goals in groups. New York: Academic Press