Intentional
group development is described as “…the complex and discontinuous nature of
change in groups” (Akrivou, Boyatzis, & McLeod, 2006) . Groups are complex systems where the
individual team members are interdependent of one another. Both the Olympic US Women’s Soccer team and US
Dream Team basketball men’s team were comprised of professional athletes. What was unique about these teams (and
similar teams to follow) is that every one of the team’s members was highly
skilled and had high will. Thus, it may
be argued that these athletes were reaching the pinnacle of their ideal selves;
they were the best of the best. Yet, putting
a team together of “ideal selves” does not automatically mean an ideal team
emerges. Akrivou, et al. (2006) wrote
that an ideal group/team is derived from a) “emergent awareness of a shared
hope”, b) “collective imagery regarding the ideal purpose and functioning of
the group”, and c) “realization and articulation of a core identity of the
group” (p. 697). This group development is
merely drawn from the intentional change theory (ICT) for the individual. Thus, having knowledge of what makes an ideal
team, I can identify two main issues that may have helped or hindered the
development of the team. Both issues
relate to identifying one’s ideal self versus real self.
Akrivou,
et al. (2006) discussed the
psychodynamic perspective of group development, a paradigm that suggested a “natural
evolution” of the group to move toward an understood goal. In the case of the two aforementioned teams,
the implicit goal was to unify as a team
rather than a collection of superstar athletes who were playing together. However, an issue that can arise from this
type of circumstance is the issue of independence versus interdependence. For instance, most if not all of the athletes
on the US women’s Soccer team and US men’s basketball team were star players
and/or leaders on their own professional teams.
These star players were the usually the first option as the “go-to” guy
or gal. As the “go-to” guy or gal, this
meant that the said person was central to much of his or her team’s plays. However, in the case of “dream teams”, a
pecking order arises (formally or informally) where even a “go-to” guy or gal
is now just a role-player. It had to be
this way – consider the adage “Too many chiefs and not enough Indians”. Yet, for a professional star athlete, it may have
been difficult to become interdependent on others when one is used to being
independent, that is, calling their own shots (both figuratively and
literally). Although it may seem like
this minor dysfunction could easily be resolved, Gibbard, Hartman, & Mann (1974)
asserted that the “dynamic issue of equilibrium can never be attained”
regarding the team. In other words, the
team members may act interdependent and yet not truly believe in being interdependent. The issue may be control, in which there is a
“leadership struggle with competition among all individual members of the
group” (Akrivou, Boyatzis, & McLeod, 2006, p. 692).
Another
possible problem with the 2000 Dream Team could have been its inaccurate observation
of real self. The American men’s
basketball teams did not lose a single game in international competition dating
back to 1992 (when the original Dream Team was assembled). Thus, the 2000 team may have believed that
they were too good to lose. The team’s
observation of its real self may have been that it was infallible. This thought in itself in dangerous because its
leads one to believe that there is little or no improvements to be made. Visualizing one’s ideal self requires one to
candidly look at his or her weaknesses.
Thus, believing that they were unbeatable, and that the games were a simple
formality enroute to the gold medal, the 2000 men’s basketball team may have
played uninspired, apathetic, and with no transcendent purpose. This behavior would perpetuate with the 2004
team. Mike Krzyzewski, coach of the 2008
team, remarked about the 2004 team:
I,
too, had watched as the United States had lost its competitive edge in
international basketball. This is not to
place blame on those involved with the 2004 Olympic basketball team, a team
that was comprised of some of the most talented players and some of the most
knowledgeable coaches in the game. In my
perspective, the system failed them. The
team was sent into competition ill-prepared.
It was not a lack of talent or basketball know-how; it was simply a lack
of proper time and competition. (p. 23)
Krzyzewski & Spatola (2009) further
added, “This system was no longer conducive to winning” (p. 23) referring to a
basketball program that lacked the vision.
A team not focused on results is one of the ‘Five Dysfunctions of a Team’
(Lencioni, 2002) . This dysfunction leads to stagnation, lack of
competiveness, and loss of achievement-orientation by team members (Lencioni, 2002) .
However,
I would be remiss if I did not state the US men’s basketball teams in 2000/2004
were good teams. I believe there are two reasons why people perceived
the 2000/2004 teams as less than good.
First, the 1992 Dream Team set the standard for all subsequent U.S. men’s
basketball team – the team, consisting of legends such as Michael Jordan, Magic
Johnson, and Larry Bird, easily won their games by a significant margin. The international teams could not compete
with the same level of talent. Thus,
people expected the U.S. to dominate international basketball play. However, by 2000 (and later), many other
countries had developed talented and skilled teams thus closing the gap and
making the games more competitive. In
comparison, the roles are almost exactly reversed for the Olympic US Women’s
Soccer team. America has not been considered
a “powerhouse” in international soccer competition – other countries have had
better teams. Yet, the US Women’s Soccer
program developed the talent and skills to over the past several decades to
compete and win while other countries were apathetic to their women’s teams (Morris, 2015) . The Olympic US Women’s Soccer team had a
vision to win and created the teams to do it.
References
Akrivou,
K., Boyatzis, R. E., & McLeod, P. L. (2006). The evolving group: towards a
prescriptive theory of intentional group development. Journal of Management
Development, 689-706.
Gibbard, G.,
Hartman, J., & Mann, R. (1974). Analysis of Groups; Contributions to
Theory Research and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Krzyzewski, M.,
& Spatola, J. (2009). The gold standard: Building a world-class team.
New York, NY: Hachette Book Group.
Lencioni, P.
(2002). Retrieved from governmentresource.com:
https://www.governmentresource.com/The_Five_Dysfunctions_of_a_Team.pdf
Morris, B. (2015,
June 30). FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved from
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/why-is-the-u-s-so-good-at-womens-soccer/
No comments:
Post a Comment