ABSTRACT
When a team, squad or a roster of players has cohesion, or cohesiveness, its members are united in a common purpose. If they tend to stick together outside sport because similar tastes and interests attract them to each other, there may be total harmony, or social cohesion. But, even if the members do not like each other, they may join in the pursuit of shared goals and produce task cohesion. The two forms of cohesion operate independently of each other and, while social cohesion may be desirable, it is by no means as critical to success as task cohesion. The word is a compound of the prefix co, for jointly or mutually, and the Latin haerere meaning stick. Cohesion is something of a Holy Grail for coaches and team
managers. It is hard-to-find but almost magical in its effects, transforming an aggregation of individuals into a collective unit. Teams comprising outstanding individual athletes often underachieve, while teams of modest players exceed all expectations. The difference is that the latter is usually cohesive: its members selflessly work toward the aims of the team rather than their own personal ambitions. They might engage in what Harry Prapavessis and Albert Carron call ‘‘sacrifice behavior,’’ giving up prerogative or privilege for the sake of another person. Prapavessis and Carron’s research concluded that ‘‘individual sacrifice and teammates’ sacrifice contribute to group cohesion.’’ It is possible to have both star players and cohesion. The Chicago
Bulls team that won six NBA titles, 1991-3 and 1996-8, was full of stars, some of them-like Dennis Rodman-supreme individualists. Becoming a TEAM PLAYER did not mean losing one’s individuality or suppressing one’s personality. Coach Phil Jackson convinced his players that only within the framework of the team could their talents fully blossom. Jackson believed in what he called ‘‘the power of oneness instead of the power of one man.’’ Jackson’s accomplishment was in ‘‘making players connect with something larger than themselves.’’ Like Jackson, every coach strives to produce a sui generis entity,
something that has unique properties over and above that of individual competitors. To do so requires subordinating the interests of individuals to that of the team. Even when this is achieved, cohesion can disappear quite suddenly. The reason for this is, as Carron pointed out, ‘‘[Cohesion is] a dynamic process, which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals and objectives.’’ As a process, it cannot be presumed simply to be there; it has to be initiated and sustained. The question is, how?
