COMMUNICATION/ these three different types of messages

COMMUNICATION/ TEAM
COMMUNICATION

The
communication process involves both sending and receiving information and it
can take several forms. There are two types of communication, verbal
communication and non-verbal communication. Verbal communication is the spoken
word or the actual process of speaking or talking to others, while nonverbal
communication contains actions, facial expressions, body position, and gestures
even one’s dress or clothes is a type of non-verbal communication.
Communication can occur in one-on-one or in group settings, and in visual
formats (e.g., pictures, videos, and observational learning) one example of
this is Lausic, Tennenbaum, Eccles, Jeong and Johnson’s (2009) study that used
visual format as a means of collecting and gathering information. Communication
involves not only the content of a message but also its emotional impact or the
effect the message has on the person receiving it (Burton and Raedeke, 2008).
Hanin (1992) portrays a number of performance-enhancing qualities of effective
communication practices between sport team members. In other words, effective
intra-team communication may serve to aid athletes of an interactive sport team
by orienting (i.e., planning), stimulating (i.e., motivating), and evaluating
(i.e., appraising) each member’s performance. Hanin (1992) conceptualized team
communication with a focus on task-orientated messages. Hanin defined these
three different types of messages based on team performance. Orienting messages
are messages that give encouragement that usually occurs prior to team
performance, whilst stimulating messages were suggested to be motivating
messages that were communicated during competition, and lastly evaluating
messages were characterized as strategic diagnoses that generally took place
after team performance (Cotterill, 2013).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Communication
is broadly defined as the exchange of information and transmission of meaning
(Katz & Kahn, 1978). Team Communication or intra team communication is the
communication or interaction that takes place among the members of a team.
Effective team communication however, is said to be the key in high performance
and productivity of a team. It is when each person clearly understands their
role in the team and participates, gives reports, updates and insights, and
listens well to instructions given to them (Kokemuller, 2017). Sullivan and Gee
(2007) defined effective team communication as “interactions between teammates
that result in enhanced team attributes and/or functioning”. Effective
intra-team communication in sport teams can be measured with the Scale for
Effective Communication in Team Sports (SECTS). Effective team communication is
a four-factor construct, consisting of the exchanges of Acceptance,
Distinctiveness, Positive Conflict, and Negative Conflict (Sullivan and Feltz,
2003; Sullivan and Short, 2011). These factors include both verbal and nonverbal
indicators (Sullivan and Feltz, 2003). Sullivan and Feltz defined Acceptance as
the communication of consideration and appreciation between teammates.
Distinctiveness is defined as the communication of a shared, but unique
identity. Positive Conflict is defined as communication regarding intra-team
conflict that expresses constructive and integrative ways of dealing with the
disruption, In contrast, Negative Conflict refers to exchanges of intra-team
conflict that are emotional, personal, and confrontational. Sullivan and Gee
(2007) found that effective communication was positively associated with
athlete satisfaction as cited from the study of Onag and Tepeci (2014).

 

 

FUNCTION
OF COMMUNICATION IN SPORT TEAMS

 

SIGNIFICANCE OF
COMMUNICATION IN SPORT TEAMS

Hassall
(2009) stated that communication is central to the teams in terms of
identifying, collecting, discussing, interpreting, and evaluating the
information they have at hand in order for them to reach a decision and
consequently completing task/s assigned to them. Regardless of the type of
tasks and team, sports related teams or not, all team members need to interact
and exchange information in order to achieve their goals. Communication is
argued to be critical for teams because it gives way through which information
and critical resources can be pooled (Barnlund, 1959), or in which case game
strategies for sport teams.

Communication
has a vital effect on social dynamics of sports (Sullivan and Feltz, 2003) and
according to Ahmed (2016) communication is an essential skill to win a
basketball game. Physical attributes and skills are the two essential aspects
in most of the sports. In addition to this Wilson (2003) cited that
communication is important in both individual and team sports. Especially in
team sports, wherein good relationship is needed and this relationship depends
on how communication is utilized within the team.

Some
indirect results of team communication as sited by Kokemuller (2017) is the
development of a sense of identity and cohesion. As team members share ideas,
engage in professional debate and work toward resolutions, they form important
bonds that strengthen their problem-solving abilities as a unit. Effective
communication also contributes to high engagement among team members, meaning
stronger performance and higher chances of success in sport teams. Effective
communication also leads to development of trust. Building trust requires more
time and communication among the team. Since withholding the truth can damage
the team’s integrity team members are encouraged to share information and
feelings without any barrier with each other by building trust (Kokemuller,
2017). When there is absence or lack of trust, no one will voice out their
opinions or ideas leaving little or no room at all for team cohesion (Quek,
n.d.). When communication is little or not at all present, teams may not be
able to complete tasks in a quicker and more efficient amount of time as
communication allows team members to understand their own roles and gives room
for understanding for what needs to be done.

Teams
that fail to communicate effectively tend to waste time and energy, because not
everyone is updated and knowledgeable of their own roles within the team and
also gives room for misunderstanding of each and their personalities which
often leads to conflict and lack of trust within the team. Because team members
fail to get feedbacks from everyone else in ther team, they can’t compare their
work to anyone else’s and they won’t gain additional understanding as to what
would make them more efficient or in other words, constructive criticism.  

COHESION

As
cited from the study of Onag and Tepeci (2014) cohesion was first formally
defined by Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) as “the total field of forces
which act on members to keep them on working in the group.” Carron, Brawley and
Widmeyer (1998) described cohesion    as
a “dynamic process that addresses the inclination of a group to merge
collectively and amalgamate due to the active purposes and also for the
contentment of associates emotional requirements”. In some studies, the term
cohesion is usually replaced with “Team unity” and “team chemistry” if it is
the main group variable (Carron, Burke ve Shapcott, 2009). To differentiate
cohesion from communication, cohesion was thought to be as an adhesive which
holds team members together whilst communication or intrapersonel communication
(self-talk) is the communication we have with ourselves (Weinberg and Gould,
2007), in this case intrapersonal team communication is the communication the
athletes have within their team. One of the instruments developed used to
measure the strength of the adhesiveness or the cohesion within a group is the Group
Environment Questionnaire (GEQ), this questionnaire was developed by Carron et
al. (1985) and was adapted into Turkish by Öcel and Ayd?n (2006) and was also
used in the study of Onag and Tepeci (2014). Numerous studies have shown a positive
correlation between team cohesion and team success. For example, Carron et al.
(2002) analyzed the relationship between task cohesion and team success and
found a strong relationship between cohesion and team success. Cohesion is
regarded as significant variable in team sports. Previous sport studies found
relationships betweeen cohesion and collective efficacy, (Heuzé, Raimbault, and
Fontayne, 2006) role involvement, (Eys and Carron, 2001) leadership,
(Caperchione, Mummery and Duncan, 2011; Hardy, Eys, and Loughead, 2008) and
communication (Sullivan and Feltz, 2003; Sullivan and Short, 2011). Spink,
Nickel, Wilson and Odonokon (2005) found that higher perceptions of cohesion
are related to higher levels of satisfaction and leadership behaviours for
athletes. Martin, Paradis, Eys and Evans (2013) found high cohesion in teams
increases the team members’ satisfaction, ascited in the study of Onag and
Tepeci (2014).

 

COMMUNICATION and
COHESION on SATISFACTION

Communication
in sports may vary from athlete to athlete, coach to athletes, athletes to
their parents, etc. In line with this Sullivan and Gee (2007) cited that the
“effective communication” enhances team attributes and functioning by
interaction of teammates with each other. The study also explored if there is a
positive relationship between satisfaction and intra-team communication in
their study entitled “The relationship between athletic satisfaction an
intrateam communication”. The total number of respondents for their study
included seventy-nine team sports in which 41 were men and 38 were women using
the (SECTS) Scale of Effective Communication in Team Sports and the Athlete
Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ). The positive relationship of these two
constructs was also confirmed by the study of Onag and Tepeci (2014) in their
study “Team Effectiveness in Sport Teams: The Effects of Team Cohesion, Intra
Team Communication and Team Norms on Team Member Satisfaction and Intent to
Remain” which correlated the first three variables on the team members’
satisfaction and intent to remain, the results of their study revealed that
team cohesion, team norms and intra team communication have significant impacts
on team member satisfaction and intent to remain with the team. Communication,
therefore not only affects the attributes of the team but also the
satisfaction. This satisfaction also affected by the cohesion that a team has.
Communication and cohesion brings the athletes reason to stay and participate
more.

 

COMMUNICATION and
COHESION on PERFORMANCE (scarcity of RRL)

“Talent
wins games, but teamwork and intelligence win championships” a quote said by
one of the most famous and successful basketball players of all time, Michael
Jordan. Rather than individuality, teamwork and cooperation are what makes a
team work. “Teamwork is essential to life. It blends the talent and strength of
individuals” another quote by Pat Riley a former coach of three famous
basketball teams even now. Communication plays a big role in teamwork, but in
order to achieve and maintain good teamwork, one must first form a cohesive
team and improve the communication within the group or intra team
communication, and only in this manner will the group achieve and maintain a
great teamwork which leads to the winning attitude a group or a team has. These
statements refer to cohesion.  83% of the
studies show a positive relationship between cohesion and a team’s performance
as cited by Widemeyer et. al., (1993) however, there are no literature that proves
that there is a significant relationship between the team’s cohesion and their
performance.

Given
that there is a scarcity found on literatures as it provides only little
definition regarding the impact of communication on performance, here are some
studies regarding the matter. Steiner (1972) stated that other factors such as
the size of the team and demography have a more influential role in a team’s
performance compared to communicative factors . On the other hand, it maybe
because the relationship between communication and team performance may be
contingent on other factors, or in other terms communication might be important
in team performance in some other circumstances (Hassall, 2009). But in the
study of Patterson et al. (2005) and others, it stated that there is a positive
relationship between team norms and performances and that the higher
performance norm of a team member is associated with high satisfaction level,
however researchers were also not able to find any local literature about this
construct.

In
the study of Lausic, Tennenbaum, Eccles, Jeong and Johnson (2009) they investigated
intrateam communication and its relation to the performance of doubles tennis.
They explored the communication within NCAA Division I female tennis doubles
teams. They utilized video and audio recordings of players during doubles
tennis matches to capture the communications that took place between and during
points. Their results indicated that most communications were emotional or
action statements. They notices that winning teams exhibited significantly
different communication sequences and some had a more homogeneous model of
communication that was said to make message interpretation more reliable and
that winning teams exchanged twice as many messages as losing teams

 

ATHLETE’S SATISFACTION
ON PERFORMANCE

Dunn,
Jasinski, Burns & Fletcher (n.d.) cite that college coaches believe that
satisfaction has an effect on individual performance and that factors affecting
it should be studied. A local study from Pecson (2014) in her dissertation
titled “Athletes’ profile, satisfaction, coaches’ leadership as determinants of
athletes’ performance in SUCs of Region IV” showed that satisfaction is a
determinant of sports performance of state colleges and universities of region
IV.