1. Group Success & Leadership
By Amber, Aimee, Ed & Omar

2. ERRRR
CAN’T TOUCH THIS!
Presents…

3. Group definition..
- Two or more individuals interacting with each other – or connected to each other via social relationships – often with a common objective.

4. Group Formation (Mr Tuckman)
Forming –
getting to know each other
Finding out about the task and objective
Show respect for each other
The coach tells the team what to do
Storming –
Power struggles occur
Different leaders occur
Alliances will form
Team may fail at this stage
4 stages
Norming –
Team agree on how to work together
Development of trust
A leader/s emerges
Coach becomes a consultant
Performing –
Team works as a unit
Poor performances used to work on skills

5. Sociogram
This is a chart that shows the inter-relationships within a group.
Lines between dots represent links between individuals
The more lines an individual has going to them the more popular they are in the team

6. The Interactive processes that occur between people in a group.
Group Dynamics
The Interactive processes that occur between people in a group.
Within the team each player had a particular role that they were responsible for.
Each player took responsibility for their own actions which prevented the team from arguing about faults during the game.
At the start of the season they had a clear goal which was to win the league and every player shared this same aspiration.
Every player belonged to the group and Sol Campbell talked about not wanting to let the team down. Showing that the players are playing for each other rather than from their own sake.
One barrier they had would be language as players were from different countries. In order to overcome this, each player had to speak English which would prevent groups forming within the squad.
Patrick Vieira as captain led by example and had a positive effect on other players through his successful performances.

7. Cohesion The dynamic forces that cause a team to stick together.
Task cohesion – A clear goal was set at the start of the season; to win the Premier League. Every player shared this common goal and worked together to achieve this. This is because the goal was attractive as everyone wants a Premier League winners medal.
Another factor that helped was the attractiveness of the group. Arsenal are one of the biggest clubs in the world which many players would dream to play for. Therefore they know that they have to perform well in order to continue being a member of that group.
Social Cohesion – The group had strong social relationships as they all got on with each other. Players said that there was a good atmosphere in the changing rooms as results were positive. New players like Jens Lehmann were welcomed into the team and praised and encouraged by his new teammates.

8. Carron’s Antecedents
Carron proposed that there are four key antecedents to the development of cohesiveness.
Environmental factors – The group were training together regularly and all lived within close proximity. Different ages within the team meant that there was experienced players for the younger players to look up to. Also the younger players would be enthusiastic and keep the more experienced players at the top of their game.
Personal factors – Every player felt a part of the group as they all had similar ability and also had the same goal.
Leadership factors – Arsene Wenger was more of a democratic leader however he was also slightly democratic as he had a good relationship with all the players.
Team factors – The team had shared experiences as they would win as a team and take individual responsibility for performances. Productivity was high as they would stay after training to practice certain techniques like set pieces, even though they were already winning games.

9. Steiner’s Model of productivity
Arsenal always set out to win, all the players supported each other and got on with each other and they always had good communication thorough out the games they played which is why Arsenal remained undefeated for this season. As the team did not really suffer from ‘faulty group processes’ meaning they had a lot of effective positive productivity. They did not suffer much from faulty group processes due to their good coordination, communication and motivation.
Losses due to faulty group processes
Actual Productivity
Potential Productivity = -

10. Ringelmann Effect
The Ringelmann effect is the diminishing contribution of each individual as group size increases.
In this specific season Arsenal did not suffer from the Ringlemann effect as they still played as a cohesive team, which can be seen from the results of the games they played:
20th December 2003:
Played=17
Won=11
Drawn=6
Lost=0
31st August 2003:
Played=4
Won=4
Drawn=0
Lost=0
31st October 2003:
Played=10
Won=7
Drawn=3
Lost=0
However due to there being some particular key players in the team, other players may have lost some motivation causing them to suffer from social loafing.

11. Social Loafing
Social Loafing is the loss of an individual effort in a group due to a reduction in motivation.
Although Arsenal played as a cohesive team through out the season, there were some key players who always seemed to contribute more to the games such as Thierry Henry, Dennis Bergkamp and Patrick Vieira, this may have caused other players in the team to become less motivated as they may have felt their contributions had little effect causing them to suffer from social loafing.
However this did not seem to effect Arsenals performance during this season.

12. Effective Leadership
Arsene Wenger had clear goals of what needed to happen at Arsenal as before he became manager the club was beginning to decline.
Arsene Wenger also had good communication skills because he was able to listen to players and play them in positions that they wanted to be played in. For example Thierry Henry was moved to a striker and became a formidable attacker whereas, before he was played at left back showing that Wenger had a great understanding for others as he respected Henry’s wishes and it greatly improved the club statistics.
He also had the ability to inspire and motivate players and he became a respected manager very quickly. Throughout the 2003/04 season players said ‘Nobody in the group felt second-best’ and the group was mentally prepared to win.

13. Fiedler’s contingency model
Arsene Wenger first became manger when he was very unknown and so he was more likely to use the task-orientated way of thinking in order to change the team’s mentality and inspire them to have a different attitude towards football. For instance, playing football more creatively would be a big change for some of the players. This was when the situation was unfavourable and so this was the correct approach to bring in according to the model.
However, when Thierry Henry was signed you could argue that they were still in an unfavourable position, yet Wenger allowed Henry to choose where he would play showing a more person-orientated and democratic approach, which was very successful as Thierry Henry scored 9 goals in the first 9 games of the season. This is a criticism of the model as it shows a democratic approach can be successful even in unfavourable situations.

14. Leadership Styles
During the majority of the season Arsene Wenger seemed to have a democratic style of leadership although there were times where he used an autocratic approach.
Arsene Wenger’s more co operative style did well as players were allowed to contribute their ideas and had a say in what position they would play as previously mentioned Thierry Henry was allowed more freedom and allowed to play striker and this was the reason he agreed to sign for Arsenal in the first place.
An autocratic style was used in order to gain respect from the team as in the beginning Arsene Wenger seemed to be making all of the major decisions and changing the traditional way that Arsenal played. Autocratic is also said to be more effective for more experienced players.

15. Chelladurai’s model of leadership
Arsene Wenger seemed to take the preferred behaviour of the group into consideration when deciding on his actual behaviour. For example, Dennis Bergkamp has an introverted personality and so joint decision making would have perhaps made him feel more comfortable, rather than being told what to do and it allowed him to get his opinion across.
In addition, Sol Campbell had experienced depression and hurtful abuse from the crowd when playing for his previous club. Therefore, another traditional manager shouting at him and telling him what to do is unlikely to have worked. By Wenger allowing Sol to have a say in how he played and making him in charge of the defence it made him feel valued and resulted in an increase in athlete performance and athlete satisfaction.

16. Any Questions? 