Applied Research The Sport Psychologist, 2004, 18, 363-380 © 2004 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.
A Qualitative Investigation of a Personal-Disclosure MutualSharing Team Building Activity John G.H. Dunn and Nicholas L. Holt University of Alberta This study examined 27 male intercollegiate ice hockey players’ subjective responses to a personal-disclosure mutual-sharing team building activity (cf. Crace & Hardy, 1997; Yukelson, 1997) delivered at a national championship tournament. Athletes participated in semistructured interviews 2 to 4 weeks after the team building meetings. Results revealed that the meetings were emotionally intense, and some participants described their involvement in these meetings as a significant life experience. Participants perceived certain benefits associated with the meetings including enhanced understanding (of self and others), increased cohesion (closeness and playing for each other), and improved confidence (confidence in teammates and feelings of invincibility). Results are discussed in terms of their potential to guide future applied evaluation research of team building programs in sport.
Practitioners and consultants who provide sport psychology support in teamsport settings may be required to deliver diverse services including team building, problem identification, relationship enhancement, team and individual motivation, conflict resolution, and individual performance enhancement (e.g., Gardner, 1995; Hardy & Crace, 1997). Given the importance of understanding if and how these services work (Biddle, 2000), the professional practice literature in sport psychology has repeatedly encouraged practitioners to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of the services they deliver (e.g., Anderson, Miles, Mahoney, & Robinson, 2002; Bloom & Stevens, 2002; Poczwardowski, Sherman, & Henschen, 1998; Sullivan & Nashman, 1998). In particular, there have been numerous calls to evaluate processes associated with applied sport psychology programs that are delivered in team settings (e.g., Bloom, Stevens, & Wickwire, 2003; Brawley & Paskevich, 1997; Dunn & Holt, 2003; Hardy & Crace, 1997; Widmeyer & Ducharme, 1997; Yukelson, 1997). The authors are with the Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, E-424 Van Vliet Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H9. E-mail:
[email protected]. Both authors made an equal contribution to this paper. 363
364
•
Dunn and Holt
The absence of systematic evaluation of sport psychology services (using either qualitative or quantitative methods) is somewhat concerning given that accreditation models (as developed by professional organizations such as AAASP and BASES) require practitioners to include evaluative practices within their consulting activities. Furthermore, the absence of systematic evaluations of team building processes in the sport psychology literature is surprising given the central role that team building is believed to play in the development of effectively functioning sport teams (Hardy & Crace, 1997). One way in which team building processes can be systematically evaluated is via the use of qualitative process evaluation studies (Patton, 2002). Patton explained that these studies are highly appropriate for examining process because (a) process requires detailed descriptions of how people engage with each other, (b) program participants’ subjective experiences need to be captured in their own words, (c) process is fluid so it cannot be captured on a single rating scale, and (d) participants’ perceptions are the key process consideration. The label “team building” can be considered an umbrella term because team building programs may have diverse aims such as individual and team performance enhancement and/or improving interpersonal dynamics (Hardy & Crace, 1997). Team building represents interventions designed to promote an increased sense of unity that enables the team to function more effectively by maximizing members’ resources to solve problems and by satisfying member needs (Brawley & Paskevich, 1997). Overall, perhaps it is best to view team building as a process that involves a range of techniques (often used in conjunction with one another) that are designed to enhance team performance by positively affecting team and individual interactions (Woodcock & Francis, 1994). To this end, the current study employed a qualitative process evaluation (Patton, 2002) to examine a team building activity that was conducted with a high-performance intercollegiate ice-hockey team. Two main team building delivery approaches have been reported in the sport psychology literature. One involves an indirect approach whereby the sport psychologist primarily trains the coach to implement the program. The other involves a more direct approach whereby the sport psychologist actively engages with athletes during the intervention (Stevens, 2002). Irrespective of the service delivery approach that is adopted, Carron, Colman, Wheeler, and Stevens (2002) noted that many team-building programs have used socially oriented activities to foster aspects of social cohesion—defined as the degree to which team members are attracted to the group and wish to remain in the group for social or interpersonal reasons (see Carron & Hausenblas, 1998). These activities have included personal growth experiences (McClure & Foster, 1991), team campouts (Cogan & Petrie, 1995), and ropes courses (Meyer, 2000). In contrast, other team building programs in sport have employed more task-focused activities to develop task cohesion—defined as the degree to which team members work together to achieve common task-, productivity-, or performance-related goals (see Carron & Hausenblas, 1998). Activities such as team goal setting (Widmeyer & Ducharme, 1997), the development of team covenants (e.g., Bloom & Stevens, 2002), and the establishment of team identities (Yukelson, 1997) have been used to enhance collective effort and attention toward specific tasks. Despite the potential differences in the specific cohesion focus that team building interventions may adopt (i.e., task versus social cohesion), Carron et al. (2002) concluded on the basis of a meta-analytic study that effective team building interventions targeting either or both task and social cohesion should have a positive
A Qualitative Investigation •
365
influence on performance. One challenge facing both researchers and practitioners interested in the functioning of sport teams is that there is little guidance about how particular types of team building approaches influence processes associated with athletes’ subjective experiences of being a team member. In other words, the processes by which team building programs influence athletes’ subjective experiences are not well understood. Given that the sport psychology literature has seldom provided systematic examinations of team building processes (Carron & Hausenblas, 1998), descriptive evidence about athletes’ responses to team-based sport psychology programs can be useful for establishing foundations that guide future research and practice (Strean, 1998).
The Personal-Disclosure Mutual-Sharing Approach to Team Building To increase the likelihood that teams will function effectively, Crace and Hardy (1997) posited that athletes not only require an understanding of themselves (i.e., self-awareness), but an understanding of (and ability to deal with) other team members’ roles, views, values, motives, and needs. Crace and Hardy proposed that the development of “mutual understanding” among team members is a cornerstone of the team building process. The importance of mutual understanding among team members (and its beneficial effects upon team dynamics) has also been recognized by other sport psychologists. For example, Orlick (1990) noted that many interpersonal problems in team settings (which can undermine team dynamics) result from individuals’ lack of understanding of other team members’ needs, motives, and feelings. As Orlick argued, “It is difficult to be responsive to another’s needs or feelings when you do not know what they are. It is difficult to respect another’s perspective if you do not understand what it is or where it came from” (p. 144). The importance of team members gaining a deeper understanding of each other has also been advocated by Yukelson (1997). Indeed, Yukelson recommended that activities to promote mutual understanding among team members should be integrated into sport psychology team building programs. Such activities are founded upon the principle of “mutual sharing” (Yukelson, 2001, p. 138) whereby participants have the opportunity to reciprocally share thoughts, feelings, and ideas about particular issues or topics. In organization psychology, this type of intra-team communication is referred to as shared cognition (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001), whereby mutual sharing and the personal disclosure of information (including information that is not directly related to the task) are thought to lead to enhanced mutual understanding and to a greater appreciation of other team members’ values, beliefs, attitudes, and personal motives. Ultimately, this improved understanding is expected to enhance team functioning (Yukelson, 2001) by improving (among other things) decision-making efficiency, motivation, and cohesion (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001). At a recent AAASP convention symposium conducted by Yukelson, Sullivan, Morett, and Dorenkott (2003), Char Morett—the women’s field hockey coach at Penn State University—gave a videotaped account of an intervention she used with her team at the NCAA Finals that employed the principles of personal disclosure and mutual sharing. She testified to the positive emotional impact that the intervention had upon her team and to some of the benefits her athletes gained from this meeting
366
•
Dunn and Holt
(including increased confidence and a sense of togetherness: D. Yukelson, personal communication, November 17th, 2003). Although useful anecdotal accounts like Char Morett’s have also been reported in the sport psychology literature to support the benefits of team building approaches that employ personal-disclosure and mutual-sharing activities (e.g., Crace & Hardy, 1997; Yukelson, 1997, 2001), there are currently no studies in the literature that have systematically examined athletes’ responses to this type of team building activity in sport. Thus, the purpose of this qualitative exploratory investigation was to systematically examine and document athletes’ subjective responses to a team building process (in a national championship setting) that employed the principles of personal disclosure and mutual sharing.
Method Participants Participants were the same 27 players (M age = 22.4 years, SD = 1.4 years) who took part in Dunn and Holt’s (2003) study of a male Canadian intercollegiate icehockey team’s perceptions of factors that influenced the delivery of a regular season sport psychology program. The data reported in this study were obtained from the same interviews conducted by Dunn and Holt (2003),1 and the current team building activity can be considered as a post-season extension of the regular-season sport psychology program previously described by Dunn and Holt. All participants were Caucasian and full-time students. Thirteen players had previous playing experience at the professional level. Of the remaining players, 3 had previously played with NCAA Division I schools, and the other 11 had competed at the highest levels of amateur junior hockey in their respective provinces. The sample was comprised of 3 goaltenders, 8 defensemen, and 16 forwards, with an average of 2.19 years playing experience on the current team (SD = 1.11).
Program Context and Delivery Brawley and Paskevich (1997) have noted that any discussion about a team building activity requires descriptions of the context in which the activity is to be delivered and of the individual who facilitates or delivers the program. To this end, details of the facilitator must also be provided because the effectiveness of the intervention can be influenced largely by the effectiveness of the facilitator (Brawley & Paskevich, 1997). The present team building activity was delivered at a national championship tournament where the team was required to play three games in a four-day period (two round-robin games within a minidivision and a final). When the activity was delivered, the sport psychology consultant (SPC) was completing his second full year with the team. Throughout the season, the SPC had adopted a direct-services (Stevens, 2002) immersion approach (Yukelson, 1997) with the team. He had met with the players on a weekly basis for a 7-month period, had met with the captains on a weekly basis, had met with the head coach on a weekly basis, had been present for all home games, and had occasionally traveled with the team to away games. Detailed descriptions of the regular-season sport psychology program and the athletes’ perceptions of the SPC have been previously reported by Dunn and Holt (2003). Suffice to say, the athletes viewed the SPC as someone they
A Qualitative Investigation •
367
trusted and respected and as a person with whom they could easily and openly communicate. The main purpose of the team building activity was to create an environment whereby the players would emotionally “sign up” for the task that lay ahead (Woodcock & Francis, 1994) and to remind them of the importance of team unity that many of the athletes had identified as being key to the success of the team the previous year when it had won the national championship title. The timing of this type of intervention (i.e., at the national championship) was also consistent with the views of Bloom et al. (2003) who reported that expert intercollegiate coaches recognize the potential importance of utilizing team building activities at times when enhancing athletes’ emotional attachment to the team may benefit team performance. The process of initiating this particular team building activity began at a team meeting that was conducted seven days prior to the team’s departure to the national championships. At the meeting, the players were told that they would be having a team meeting in their hotel the night before their first game at the championships. The SPC provided the players with the following verbatim instructions: For the Thursday night meeting in [host city], come prepared with a personal story that you would want everyone to know about you that would make them want you in the trench beside them before going over the top and into battle. Your story can be related to any event that took place in your personal life or in your sporting life. Your story should illustrate something that defines your character, your motives, and your desires. The wartime trench analogy was based upon a movie clip that the team had watched several weeks prior to this meeting that depicted a World War II battle scene where emotional commitment to the task and team unity had been exemplified by the soldiers. The athletes were also familiar with this type of “homework” assignment (see Dunn & Holt, 2003) given that they had been asked on various occasions throughout the season to come to future team meetings with work prepared for discussion. Players were also informed that, in accordance with the meeting protocol that had been adopted throughout the season, no members of the technical coaching staff would be present at the meeting. Lastly, the players were given a list containing the scheduled order of speakers that would be followed at the meeting. On the evening of the team building meeting at the national championships, the players met in a private conference room in the team hotel following the team meal. The SPC called the meeting to order with the following introduction: Last week I asked you to come to this meeting prepared to share with us a defining moment that shaped your sporting personality, and how this is something that you’ll rely on when we go into battle this weekend. Convince us that we would want you in the trenches along side us when we go to war tomorrow. If it is truly meaningful to you, then it will become apparent to the rest of us. Don’t try to put on a performance. Just be open and honest with us and share your story. What you will get out of this meeting will depend entirely upon what you are willing to put into it.
368
•
Dunn and Holt
These instructions were designed to foster a process that would create a climate of mutual understanding (Yukelson, 2001) and honest self-evaluation (Crace & Hardy, 1997). To set the tone for the meeting the SPC began with two brief stories—one from his personal life and one from his sporting life. Upon completion of the SPC’s speech, each player came forward individually (in the assigned order) and presented his story to the team. The narratives were so detailed that two hours later only half of the team (n = 14) had spoken. The SPC became concerned that the meeting would go on so late that it would interfere with the players’ preparation for their opening game the following day. Consequently, the SPC consulted with the captains and made a decision to stop the meeting and resume it the next evening. No players expressed any objection to this decision. On the evening following the game the next the day, the meeting was resumed. This second meeting took approximately 80 minutes to complete. During the interviews, no players differentiated between the experiences or perceived benefits associated with either meeting, nor did any players indicate that one meeting was any more powerful or relevant than the other.
Data Collection Procedure All players received a letter informing them that the team SPC was conducting a study (a) for academic research purposes and (b) to provide information to help with his future work with the team. Two weeks following the national tournament, the players were asked to volunteer to participate in a semistructured tape-recorded interview to be conducted by a final-year sport psychology PhD student who had no previous connections with the team. The Faculty Ethics Committee and the head coach of the team approved the study, and it was stressed to all participants that their involvement was entirely voluntary and not a mandatory duty associated with team membership. All athletes completed standard informed consent procedures.
Interviews Interviews with the 27 players commenced two weeks after the national championship and were completed within a two-week period. The interviewer paid particular attention to developing rapport, explaining confidentiality procedures and helping the players relax in the interview situation. With regard to the findings reported in the current study, we adopted a semistructured format using three open-ended questions designed to provoke conversations that explored participants’ subjective experiences of the team building activity. The formal part of the interview began with an open-ended introductory question: “What, if anything, stood out for you from the sport psychology program delivered this year?” 2 The second and third areas of inquiry focussed on (a) the players’ evaluations of the play-off sport psychology program in general and (b) the players’ perceptions of positive and negative experiences associated with the team building meetings from the national tournament. The use of a semistructured approach along with open-ended questions enabled us to “follow” the participants in a conversational manner, providing them with the flexibility to discuss issues and experiences that were important to them in greater depth (Patton, 2002; Smith, 1995). Consistent with the semistructured interview format and use of open-ended questions, the interviewer also used detail probes (e.g., What was your involvement in the situation? How did that come about?), elaboration probes (e.g., Can you give me more information about that?
A Qualitative Investigation •
369
How did that make you feel? How did that affect the team?), and clarification probes (e.g., You said the program had a positive effect, what do you mean by that?) to increase the richness and depth of the responses (Patton, 2002). Interviews lasted between 30 minutes and one hour, and all data were transcribed verbatim by the interviewer and coded to ensure athlete anonymity.
Data Analysis Given the open-ended nature of the interview questions, data analysis was conducted by employing inductive qualitative data analysis techniques (drawing from Maykut & Morehouse, 1994; Patton, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The inductive analytic procedures mirror those described by Dunn and Holt (2003). Both researchers read the data set several times to become familiar with the content. A series of data analysis meetings were held over a four-week period, and the data were subjected to the following steps by both researchers working as a team: (a) individual meaning units were identified from the interview transcripts using the process of line-by-line micro-coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998)3; (b) similar meaning units were then “cut” from the interview transcript and “pasted” into a MS-Word file that was assigned an essence phrase or “rule of inclusion” (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994) that conveyed the essential meaning conveyed within that category (e.g., the theme “emotional intensity” was assigned the essence phrase “refers to participants describing the emotional intensity of the meetings”); and (c) each grouping of meaning units was carefully analyzed for similarities, differences, and appropriate classification using the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In order to provide visual representations of the results to advance data analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994), two further analytic techniques were employed. First, a hierarchical conceptual framework containing each of the meaning units was constructed using diagrams and memos (Patton, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The purpose of this conceptual framework was to represent connections and relationships among the data in order to establish the processes that were associated with the team meeting by the players. Second, a data matrix (Miles & Huberman, 1994) was created (see Table 1), which reflected the extent to which each participant reported themes to provide indications of the various levels of data saturation associated with each theme. Both researchers worked together throughout the analytic procedures and discussed (and agreed upon) all coding decisions together. The process of working as a coding team helps reduce individual researcher biases and enhances the trustworthiness of the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Member-Checking. Culver, Gilbert, and Trudel (2003) recently noted that although member checking is an important validity technique in qualitative research, it has not been frequently used in sport psychology research. Moreover, Culver et al. pointed out that when member checking has been employed in sport psychology research, it has been used almost exclusively to verify interview transcripts as opposed to verifying researchers’ interpretations of the data. Consequently, a member-checking procedure was used for helping to establish the veracity of the researchers’ interpretations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2002). Five of the original participants (one team member from each playing year on the team: 1st – 5th year) were involved in member-checking interviews, which were completed 38 months after the original interviews.4 During member-checking, the participants were initially invited to recall their memories of the team building
+
8
+
10
n
+
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + +
20
13
+
+
+ +
+
+ + + +
+
+ + + + + + +
+
+ + +
Significant life experience
+ + + + +
Emotional intensity
18
+
+
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+ + +
Understanding others
6
+
+ +
+
+
+
Understanding self
Understanding
Note. The plus sign (+) indicates the presence of an athlete’s response in the category
+
+
+ +
+
+
+ +
+
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
+ + +
Apprehension
Setting the tone
Perceptions of Meetings
Data Matrix of Participants’ Responses
21
+ + + + +
+ +
+ + + + +
+ + +
+ + + + +
+
Closeness
18
+ + +
+ +
+
+ + + + + + +
+
+ + +
+
Playing for each other
Cohesion
Perceived Benefits
6
+ +
+ + +
+
Confidence and trust in teammates
9
+ +
+ + +
+
+
+
+
Feelings of invincibility
Confidence
•
ID
Table 1
370 Dunn and Holt
A Qualitative Investigation •
371
meetings at the national tournament. The SPC then produced a schematic overview (i.e., a graphical model) of the results and explained the findings (and the meaning of the labels assigned to each category in Table 1). Participants were asked to examine the model to determine if it recreated a recognizable reality for them (i.e., if they could locate their experiences in the model). After looking at the model, member-checkers were then asked to rate the “relevancy” of each category on a 7point scale (1 = Does not reflect my experiences, perceptions, and views at all; 7 = Totally reflects my experiences, perceptions, and views). The results of the relevancy ratings are presented in Table 2. After completing the ratings, the players were asked to comment on their ratings and the category descriptions. Member-checking interviews were not tape-recorded, but detailed notes were made during and after each meeting. Given that (a) we waited approximately three years after the event, (b) participants could still vividly recall specific details about the meetings, and (c) the categories were evaluated so favorably, we feel that this procedure suggests that the results were trustworthy (cf. Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2002).
Results The categories that were inductively derived from the data analysis, together with an idiographic breakdown of each participant’s responses within each category, are provided in the data matrix (Table 1). In the following results section, athletes’ perceptions of the meetings themselves are initially described. Subsequently, athletes’ perceptions of the perceived benefits that they associated with the meetings are presented.
Perceptions of Meetings Apprehension. Ten players experienced a sense of apprehension leading up to the meetings. For example, P27 felt “a little bit of pressure; number one because you want to have something you can share, and number two being one of the captains on the team you want to bring something that’s significant.” The personal nature of the stories appeared to concern some players, as P12 said “. . . and we were going to go up in front of everybody and share this. For some guys, that’s not the easiest thing in the world to do.” During member checking, several participants reiterated that they did not fear the meeting per se, but they were apprehensive in the sense that they felt responsible to deliver a good speech. As the fifth-year player member-checker recalled, For three days before I had to speak I knew I just couldn’t wing it off the cuff . . . it gave me some stress for a few days because I really wanted to make a difference based on the things I would say. Setting the Tone. The first player to talk (after the SPC had presented his stories) set an emotional tone that influenced the entire meeting. Eight players recognized the deliberate planning of this on the part of the SPC and commented that this was a very important feature of the meeting. For example, P27 said, “I think [the SPC] organized it so that the guy who spoke first and the guy who spoke last were sort of two of the more powerful story tellers you could say.” P21 said, “He [the SPC] couldn’t have started it off better. He had [name of player] another
372
•
Table 2
Dunn and Holt Member Checkers’ Ratings of Model Components Playing year of member checker
Perceptions of Meetings Apprehension Setting the tone Emotional intensity Significant life experience Perceived Outcomes Understanding others Understanding self Closeness Playing for each other Confidence & trust in teammates Feelings of invincibility
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Mdn
Range
7 7 7
6 7 7
6 7 7
6 7 7
7 7 7
6 7 7
6–7 7–7 7–7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7–7
7 6 7 7
5 4 7 7
6 2 7 7
7 7 7 7
6 7 7 7
6 6 7 7
5–7 2–7 7–7 7–7
7 7
7 7
5 3
7 7
7 6
7 7
5–7 3–7
Note. Rating scale descriptors: 1 = Does not reflect my experiences, views, or perceptions at all. 4 = Moderately reflects my experiences, views, or perceptions. 7 = Totally reflects my experiences, views, or perceptions.
one of our emotional spark plugs [talk first].” P10 commented upon the influence of the first player in the following way: [The SPC] picked him personally. [The SPC] said, “you’re going first.” And I don’t know if he knew or whatever, and [name of player’s] story was just, I mean, if you didn’t have a tear in your eye, you weren’t human, because it was just unreal. The things he’d gone through, and why he was here, and what he was doing. And I don’t know if [the SPC] knew that or not. But still, using him first! Emotional Intensity. In total, 20 players commented about the meeting becaming emotionally intense as each of the players shared their personal stories. Referring to the level of emotion, P9 said, “we were expecting something special, but nobody expected it to be as strong as it was. It just started off so deep, and it just went on from there. It got so deep, and so personal.” P3 remarked, “the emotion in that room was something you don’t see from hockey players very often” and P12 noted that “guys were crying and stuff and it was really, really emotional.” P2 stated, “There was so much emotion, between laughter and crying, and just the stories touched each of us so deeply. I think that’s the reason why we came through that weekend . . . just because of that.”
A Qualitative Investigation •
373
Significant Life Experience. Thirteen players were so moved by their experiences in the meetings that they thought they would never forget them and may not experience anything comparable again. P12 said, That was something that I’ll never forget . . . I’ve been playing hockey for 20 years now, and you never see guys, other than if they are broken somewhere, shed a tear. And I think to come up there and do that voluntarily really impressed me, and I couldn’t believe it. Similarly, P20 said, Just the sharing that we had, when everybody went up and said their piece, and what they were playing for and stuff like that. I think that was the biggest thing and it will live with me forever for what the guys said and what they were playing for.
Perceived Benefits Understanding Others. Eighteen athletes commented that the meetings and the sharing of personal stories helped them understand more about their teammates. P16 explained how the meetings allowed players to reveal a part of their personality that teammates may have never seen before: I’ve played on teams where you see guys every day for the whole year, but you don’t really know them, you don’t really know what’s going on. But to take it to a new level, and to get a little deeper to find out what’s going on, you get a new understanding of the different players. There’s guys on our team all year you are shaking your head at, and then when they get the opportunity to say, to talk about some of the things in his life that have shaped him as a person, you get a whole new understanding and appreciation, and it’s a love that you have for that guy, it’s a new understanding. You’re more tolerant. You’re more willing. You want to see him succeed when a guy talks about his struggles. The enhanced understanding of other players was interpreted in the following way by P27: “I think just as a result of those sessions we learned more about each other and about what we all want[ed] to achieve.” Similarly, P20 commented that the meetings made him realize that “maybe we didn’t know each other as well as we thought we did during the year” and P25 felt that “those two nights were like an extra six months of being together . . . we learned a lot about each other and I thought that helped.” Understanding Self. In addition to understanding the perspective of others, six athletes thought that the meetings also provided opportunities for developing self-knowledge. P18 said the meetings “made me look deeper into myself and the way I act towards my teammates.” The meetings had a profound effect on P22 who said,
374
•
Dunn and Holt
[The meetings] honestly made me realize why I play hockey. That’s the bottom line. That’s all I can say. I realized why I play, and I realized who I care about, and why I care about them. I realized how much people care about the game, and how much they care about each other. Those meetings honestly did that for me: that much. During member-checking, this category was rated as highly relevant by three participants (see Table 2), but two participants thought that they already knew themselves well, and therefore this outcome was less relevant for them personally. Closeness. There was consensus among 21 players that the meetings brought the team closer. For example, P22 said the meetings “made us the closest team I’ve ever played on in my life,” and P7 agreed that the meetings “brought the team closer than in any other way it could have been.” In reference to the meetings P26 said, “we’ll all just be brothers now, no matter what happens we’ll be tight.” Similarly, P27 stated, “it was a tightness that couldn’t be broken after that session.” P8 summarized how he thought the meetings influenced his relationships with teammates: It’s been said before probably, a good team wins together, practices together, plays together, does whatever [together]. And for the first time ever in my hockey career, whether it’s pro or amateur, I have been part of a team where we actually cry together, and I think it really tied the team together. Playing For Each Other. Eighteen players said that they were willing to put in extra effort during games because the meetings helped them realize what the team and the championship meant to everyone. P12 said, “well, if this guy is willing to share that [i.e., his story] with me, and if he is going to go the distance for me, then I’ll do it for him too.” P18 agreed: “You know you have to give that extra, as much as you can, just to make it happen, not only for yourself but for everyone else.” P14 explained that as a result of the meetings, “You end up wanting to play for each other, rather than just for the gold, rather than just for yourself.” P3 summed up his feelings about playing for his teammates in the following way: When you’re sitting beside me and I see you crying, and I’m crying, and you see the emotion of 25 guys’ faces, you know that come war the next day, I’m going to go to war for you, and you’re going to go to war for me. Confidence and Trust in Teammates. Six players said that the knowledge that players were “playing for each other” increased their levels of confidence. For example, P19 said, During the regular season . . . it’s expected that a lot of guys won’t show up at some games. Then you’re a little unsure of how these players are going to play in certain games. But . . . [after the meetings at nationals] you know that everyone has a reason to do it for, and you know they are honest with you about
A Qualitative Investigation •
375
the reason why they’re trying to accomplish it. That gives me a lot more confidence. Similarly, P17 thought that one of the benefits from the process was that “it gave us all the confidence in the world and in each other.” When asked if the team meetings made a difference to the on-ice performance of the team, P25 answered, “It made a huge difference. Just trust, and everyone pulling together in crucial times, and I think everyone just believing in each other [made the difference].” Feelings of Invincibility. Nine players reported a sense of invincibility following the meetings. P3 said, “we’d come out of those meetings, and we’d beat the Oilers [a professional hockey team], we’d beat the Stanley Cup champions, that’s how you feel when you walk out of there, and it’s the most unbelievable feeling.” And P15 said, “I left the room feeling that there was no way we could lose, so that’s what stands out in my mind the most.” P17 explained how he started to feel unbeatable during the first part of the meeting: “I knew . . . after even less than half the guys went, that no one was going to beat us after that.” And P16 recalled that even before they had played, “some guys just said, ‘we’ve already won, they can’t beat us.’”
Discussion The results of this study revealed new information about processes associated with athletes’ subjective experiences of a team building activity that was based upon the principles of personal disclosure and mutual sharing. Results suggested that the mutual sharing and honest self-evaluations that formed part of this team building approach (cf. Crace & Hardy, 1997; Yukelson, 1997) were regarded as emotionally intense experiences by the athletes. Overall, the athletes’ narratives indicated a process whereby the experiences associated with the meetings were related to a variety of perceived benefits at both the individual and team level (i.e., understanding, cohesion, confidence). Some speculation as to why athletes would associate an emotional meeting with psychosocial benefits is warranted. Yukelson (2001) suggested that when athletes discover things about each other that they typically would not know, they gain a deeper appreciation and understanding of the problems and issues faced by fellow team members (see also Orlick, 1990). Both Yukelson (2001) and Hardy and Crace (1997) further theorized that as “understanding” outcomes are realized, socioemotional bonds among group members are often strengthened. It appears that enhanced understanding may mediate a connection between an emotional team building meeting and psychosocial benefits. Given that no systematically derived evidence to support this prediction has been previously published, the current study makes a contribution to providing a foundation for future research by suggesting that understanding, cohesion, and confidence were related by the athletes to the activity. Future evaluation research should include (where possible) measures of understanding, cohesion, and confidence as dependent variables that can be measured pre- and post-intervention to determine the extent to which these constructs are indeed affected by the current team building approach. The perceived benefits that were identified by the players in this study have all been discussed in the group dynamics and performance enhancement literature.
376
•
Dunn and Holt
The process of mutual sharing is hypothesized to lead to mutual understanding within sport teams (Hardy & Crace, 1997; Yukelson, 2001). The feeling of being closer as a group appears to be synonymous with increased social cohesion (Carron & Hausenblas, 1998). Research has generally supported a positive cohesion-performance relationship for interactive sport teams (Carron et al., 2002). Many of the comments relating to confidence appeared to reflect Bandura’s (1997) construct of collective efficacy, which is a group’s shared belief in its own collective ability to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment. Previous research with athletes has also shown that collective efficacy is positively correlated with both group cohesion (Paskevich, Brawley, Dorsch, & Widmeyer, 1999) and performance (Feltz & Lirgg, 1998), indicating that enhanced collective efficacy and cohesion can positively affect team performance in sport. Overall, the aforementioned perceived benefits that were identified by the players reflect many of the theorized outcomes associated with team mental models that have received attention in the organization psychology literature—where team mental models describe the “organized understanding of relevant knowledge that is shared by team members” (Mohammed & Dumville, 2001, p. 89). Importantly, the relevant knowledge that is shared among team members need not necessarily be task-specific or even task-related (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001), as was the case with many of the athletes’ stories that were shared at the team-building activity conducted in this study. The basic premise of these team mental models is that the sharing of information among team members is assumed to lead to improvements in team effectiveness and better team processes. The current results directly parallel the views of Cannon-Bowers and Salas who stated that shared cognition among team members can led to “motivational outcomes such as [enhanced] cohesion, trust, morale, collective efficacy and satisfaction with the team” (p. 200). Clearly, the current findings indicate that there are perceived benefits associated with the current team building process (based upon the principles of personal disclosure and mutual sharing) that may relate to enhanced team functioning. It must be stressed that the athletes made connections between the team meetings and certain benefits or outcomes, but due to the limitations of the research design employed, we (the researchers) cannot draw causal inferences from the data presented here. We also acknowledge that one limitation that must be considered in this study is the reliance on retrospective recall. In particular, research shows that knowledge of performance outcome (i.e., performance at the tournament) can interfere with the accuracy of retrospective recall (Brewer, Van Raalte, Linder, & Van Raalte, 1991). However, certain important steps were taken in this study to minimize social desirability response bias and attribution error. First, all interviews were conducted by a researcher previously unconnected with the team (i.e., a neutral party). This protocol was implemented with the intention of creating an interview environment in which the athletes could speak candidly and openly about their experiences (without fear of any social reprisal that they may have otherwise perceived had the interviews been conducted by someone who was connected with the team). For similar reasons, player anonymity from the SPC was also assured. Second, players were encouraged to evaluate both the strengths and weaknesses of the program, thereby giving them the freedom to talk about the meetings from any perspective they deemed fit. Third, the interviews were conducted 2 to 4 weeks after the tournament to allow for the diffusion of any residual emotions. Lastly,
A Qualitative Investigation •
377
member-checking interviews were conducted approximately three years after the meetings (across a wide cross-section of the team). Waiting three years to conduct member checking has the obvious disadvantage of (a) allowing former events to be reinterpreted by events that have since occurred and (b) undermining the accuracy of event-recall with the passage of time. Nevertheless, since member checkers still had strong feelings toward the meetings three years later (and their feedback directly corroborated the initial interview data), it was deemed to reflect conditions in which attribution error had indeed been minimized. Overall, we hope that the present results will be used by practitioners to guide future team building practices. For example, the current team building activities were delivered at a national tournament setting. As stated previously, Bloom et al. (2003) recently reported that expert coaches of intercollegiate varsity teams in Canada felt that it was important to implement such team building activities around important events to gain an emotional edge or to increase feelings of camaraderie. Having said this, before a decision to implement any sort of intervention around an important event can be made, the practitioner (whether it be the coach or SPC) must carefully consider (a) how the athletes may perceive (and respond to) the activity and (b) any factors that may impact the likelihood of the activity achieving its desired results. We would suggest that before such a decision could be made, the practitioner must have a high degree of familiarity with the athletes, the team culture, the team-building process, and the situational context of the event. To this end, we concur with Yukelson’s (1997) view that an immersion approach may be required if an SPC is to acquire the necessary tacit knowledge (Sternberg, Wagner, Williams, & Horvath, 1995) to conduct an effective intervention in this context. The present results (Table 1) also suggest that practitioners should be aware that athletes can experience a sense of apprehension around team building activities that involve public speaking. Public speaking in and of itself can be a very threatening task for some individuals (Behnke & Sawyer, 1999), and this threat may be further magnified by the personal nature of the stories that the athletes were asked to disclose. Thus, care is warranted in delivering such interventions if the levels of prespeaking anxiety are such that they begin to interfere with the athletes’ ideal performance state in the lead up to competition. It is worth noting that the perceived benefits reported by athletes in this study (Table 1) did not appear to relate to aspects of task cohesion. We suggest that this finding is likely a function of the task that was set for the athletes, as opposed to a function of the process (i.e., honest self-evaluation, personal disclosure, and mutual sharing). In other words, by asking the athletes to share personally meaningful stories that defined or shaped their personalities, the athletes perceived that the meetings brought the team closer together, helped the team feel more committed to one another, and helped the team develop a greater sense of trust in one another. We speculate that had the athletes been asked to share their personal goals or to define their roles for the upcoming championship, perceived benefits more closely aligned with task-cohesion would likely have been reported. Thus, practitioners (who are going to lead this type of meeting) can implement the same process, but they need to consider the types of benefits (or “outcomes”) that they wish the meeting to produce. In other words, the process can remain the same, but the focus or content of the personal-disclosure task can be altered to suit the outcome that the practitioner wishes to achieve (e.g., improved task-cohesion, social cohesion, collective efficacy, etc.).
378
•
Dunn and Holt
In closing, we recognize that issues pertaining to the generalizabilty of qualitative research have often been discussed in the methodological literature (e.g., Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2002). Findings like those revealed in the current study may be most confidently generalized to settings that are similar to those corresponding with the original research (Shadish, 1995). One way to help establish the generalizability of the team building approach presented here would be to replicate the current study across populations (e.g., different sport and gender, different SPC, different ability level). Replicated research can then reveal consistencies that help confirm initial findings or highlight discrepancies that can be explained through identification of the alternative conditions that may be operating in each case (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
References Anderson, A. G., Miles, A., Mahoney, C., & Robinson, P. (2002). Evaluating the effectiveness of applied sport psychology practice: Making a case for the case study approach. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 432-453. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Behnke, R.R., & Sawyer, C.R. (1999). Milestones of anticipatory public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 48, 165-172. Biddle, S. (2000). Psychology of sport and exercise: Present and future. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 1, 1-5. Bloom, G.A., & Stevens, D.E. (2002). A team-building mental skills training program with an intercollegiate equestrian team. Athletic Insight, 4. Retrieved August 9, 2002, from http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol4Iss1/EquestrianTeamBuilding.htm Bloom, G.A., Stevens, D.E., & Wickwire, T.L. (2003). Expert coaches’ perceptions of team building. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 129-143. Brawley, L.R., & Paskevich, D.M. (1997). Conducting team building research in the context of sport and exercise. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 11-40. Brewer, B., Van Raalte, J.L., Linder, D.E., & Van Raalte, N.S. (1991). Peak performance and the perils of retrospective introspection. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 8, 227-238. Cannon-Bowers, J.A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195-202. Carron, A.V., Colman, M.M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 168-188. Carron, A.V., & Hausenblas, H.A. (1998). Group dynamics in sport (2nd ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Cogan, K.D., & Petrie, T.A. (1995). Sport consultation: An evaluation of a season-long intervention with female collegiate gymnasts. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 282-296. Crace, R.K., & Hardy, C.J. (1997). Individual values in the team building process. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 41-60. Culver, D. M., Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2003). A decade of qualitative research in sport psychology journals: 1990-1999. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 1-15. Dunn, J.G.H., & Holt, N.L. (2003). Collegiate ice hockey players’ perceptions of the delivery of an applied sport psychology program. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 351-368. Feltz, D., & Lirgg, C.D. (1998). Perceived team and player efficacy in hockey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 557-564.
A Qualitative Investigation •
379
Gardner, R. (1995). The coach and the team psychologist: An integrated organizational model. In S.M. Murphy (Ed.), Sport psychology interventions (pp. 147-175). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hardy, C.J., & Crace, R.K. (1997). Foundations of team building: Introduction to the team building primer. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 1-10. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. Lewes, UK: Falmer. McClure, B.A., & Foster, C.D. (1991). Group work as a method of promoting cohesiveness within a women’s gymnastics team. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 307-313. Meyer, B.B. (2000). The ropes and challenges course: A quasi-experimental examination. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 1249-1257. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B.C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 89-106. Orlick, T. (1990). In pursuit of excellence (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Paskevich, D.M., Brawley, L.R., Dorsch, K.D., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1999). Relationship between collective efficacy and team cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 210-222. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed). Newbury Park; CA: Sage. Poczwardowski, A., Sherman, C.P., & Henschen, K.P. (1998). A sport psychology service delivery heuristic: Building on theory and practice. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 191-207. Shadish, W.R. (1995). The logic of generalization: Five principles common to experiments and ethnographies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 419-428. Smith, J.A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J.A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. van Langenhore (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 9-26). London: Sage. Sternberg, R.J., Wagner, R.K., Williams, W.M., & Horvath, J.A. (1995). Testing common sense. American Psychologist, 50, 912-927. Stevens, D.E. (2002). Building the effective team. In J.M. Silva III & D.E. Stevens (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 306-327). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Strean, W.B. (1998). Possibilities for qualitative research in sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 333-345. Sullivan, P.A., & Nashman, H.W. (1998). Self-perceptions of the role of USOC sport psychologists in working with Olympic athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 95103. Widmeyer, W.N., & Ducharme, K. (1997). Team building through goal setting. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 97-113. Woodcock, R.W., & Francis, D. (1994). Team building strategy. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Yukelson, D. (1997). Principles of effective team building interventions in sport: A direct services approach at Penn State University. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 73-96.
380
•
Dunn and Holt
Yukelson, D. (2001). Communicating effectively. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (4th ed., pp. 135-149). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Yukelson, D., Sullivan, B. A., Morett, C., & Dorenkott, B. (2003, October). Coaches’ perspectives on applying sport psychology into their coaching. Invited symposium presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.
Authors’ Notes 1 Although the data reported in this study were obtained from the same interviews conducted by Dunn and Holt (2003), it is important to recognize that the interviews were divided into two distinct sections: regular season reflections about the program and the SPC (i.e., Dunn & Holt, 2003) and play-off reflections (i.e., present data). In other words, none of the data reported in this study were included in the Dunn and Holt paper and vice versa. 2 When asked to respond to the opening question of the interview, 26 athletes immediately made reference to the team building activity that was conducted at the national tournament. Only P11 did not initially discuss the team building activity. As such, in 26 interviews the three open-ended questions pertaining to the play-off team building activities were discussed first before the second part of the interview commenced. Because P11 did not talk about the play-offs in response to the first (introductory) question, questions about the play-off team building activity were posed at the end of his interview. 3 At this point, the data pertaining to the regular season (i.e., Dunn & Holt, 2003) and the data pertaining to the play-off team building activity (i.e., the current data) were divided and analyzed separately. Overall, the interviews yielded 260 pages of transcribed data, 121 of which pertained solely to the play-off team building activity. 4 Member checking took place approximately three years after the original interviews because it had taken this amount of time to (a) transcribe the interviews, (b) analyze the data, (c) reach consensus on the categories and the model that had been developed, and (d) arrange meetings with players who had since graduated and who were willing and able to participate in the member-checking process.
Manuscript submitted: November 24, 2003 Revision received: May 4, 2004
