You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Most sport is social: athletes train in squads, play in teams, and answer to coaches whose behaviour shapes not only their performance but their enjoyment, confidence and willingness to continue. This topic, the first of the two social topics in the OCR sport option, examines teams, coaching and leadership — how groups become effective, and how the person in charge influences those they lead. Its prescribed key research is Smith, Smoll and Curtis's (1979) study of Coach Effectiveness Training (CET), a cognitive-behavioural intervention that trained youth-sport coaches to behave in ways that improved young players' experience. This lesson works through the Background (group processes, cohesion, and theories of leadership and coaching), the Key research (Smith et al. in full), and an Application (a strategy for improving team performance).
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 03, Section B (Sport & exercise) topic | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| Teams, group processes and cohesion | Performing with others — Background (Social) | AO1 knowledge; AO3 evaluation |
| Coaching and theories of leadership | Performing with others — Background (Social) | AO1; AO2 applying to teams |
| Smith et al. (1979): Coach Effectiveness Training | Performing with others — Key research | AO1 knowledge; AO3 evaluation |
| A strategy for improving team performance | Performing with others — Application | AO2 applying to a novel situation |
The specification is referenced descriptively; consult the official OCR H567 specification document for exact wording. This lesson develops AO1 (group processes, cohesion, leadership theory and the key research), AO2 (designing a strategy to improve team performance) and AO3 (evaluating the theories and the key research).
A team is more than a collection of individuals; it is a group — a set of people who interact, share goals and see themselves as a unit. Understanding why some teams perform better than the sum of their parts, and others worse, is central to this topic.
A useful starting point is Steiner's model, which proposes that a team's actual productivity equals its potential productivity (what it could achieve given its members' abilities) minus losses due to faulty group processes. Those losses take two forms: coordination losses (poor timing, tactics or teamwork — the parts not meshing) and motivation losses (individuals not trying their hardest in a group). This simple idea explains a familiar phenomenon: a team of stars can underperform a well-drilled team of lesser players because coordination and motivation losses squander its potential.
A classic motivation loss is social loafing — the tendency for individuals to exert less effort when working in a group than when working alone, especially when their individual contribution cannot be identified. A tug-of-war team, a relay squad or a rowing eight can all suffer as members (often unconsciously) "hide in the crowd". The applied lesson is that making individual contributions identifiable and valued reduces loafing — a point that returns in the application. Related is the Ringelmann effect, the early observation that as group size increases, the average individual contribution decreases.
Several factors are known to increase social loafing, and knowing them tells a coach exactly what to counter. Loafing grows when individual efforts are not identifiable (no one can tell who is trying), when the task feels low in importance or meaningfulness, when individuals believe their contribution is dispensable (the team will succeed or fail regardless of them), when they perceive others as loafing (and reduce their own effort to avoid being a "sucker"), and in larger groups where responsibility is diffused. The mirror-image remedies therefore run through the application: make each player's contribution visible and measured, emphasise the value of every role, convince players their effort genuinely matters to the outcome, hold the group to a shared effort norm, and, where possible, break large squads into smaller units with clear accountability. Framed this way, social loafing is not an unfixable feature of teams but a predictable motivation loss with well-understood levers — which is exactly the kind of applied, evidence-based reasoning Section B rewards.
Cohesion is the tendency of a group to stick together and stay united in pursuit of its goals. Albert Carron's influential model distinguishes two kinds: task cohesion (how well members work together toward shared goals — coordination, roles, tactics) and social cohesion (how much members like each other and enjoy the group's company). The two are related but separable: a team can have high task cohesion with modest social cohesion (they work superbly together without being friends), or high social cohesion with poor task cohesion (a happy group that does not gel on the pitch).
The cohesion–performance relationship is important and nuanced. Broadly, cohesion and performance are positively related, and — crucially — the relationship is bidirectional (circular): cohesion improves performance, and success improves cohesion (winning teams bond; bonding teams win). Evidence suggests task cohesion is generally the stronger predictor of performance, and that cohesion matters more in interactive sports (football, hockey — where players must coordinate) than in coactive sports (archery, golf teams — where individuals perform in parallel). Recognising this circular, task-weighted, sport-dependent picture is a strong AO3 move.
It is also worth noting that cohesion is not always beneficial, which is a subtle and high-value evaluation point. Very high social cohesion can occasionally harm performance if a group becomes so focused on maintaining harmony and friendships that it tolerates poor effort, avoids the honest conflict needed to improve, or prioritises socialising over training — a sporting echo of "groupthink". Similarly, cohesion built around the wrong norms (a group that collectively norms low effort) entrenches underperformance. The practical implication for the application is that a coach should build task cohesion and productive norms deliberately, rather than assuming that a happy, sociable squad will automatically perform — friendliness and effectiveness are related but not identical.
Groups are not static; they develop. Tuckman's well-known model describes a sequence teams tend to pass through: forming (members come together, tentative and dependent on the leader), storming (conflict emerges over roles, status and approach), norming (the group settles shared norms, roles and cooperation), and performing (the group functions effectively toward its goals), with a later adjourning stage as the group disbands. The model is a simplification — teams do not always move neatly through the stages, and may cycle back (a new signing or a run of defeats can return a "performing" team to "storming") — but it is useful for two reasons. First, it reminds a coach that early conflict is normal, not a sign of failure, and that rushing to suppress storming can prevent a team from establishing the norms it needs. Second, it implies that leadership demands change over the team's life: a newly formed squad needs more direction and structure, whereas a mature "performing" squad can be led more democratically. This developmental view connects directly to Chelladurai's insistence that the required leadership behaviour depends on the situation — and the situation includes how far the team has developed.
Beyond the formal theories, it helps to grasp the practical styles a leader can adopt and how they suit different circumstances. A long-standing distinction separates autocratic (task-oriented, directive) leadership, in which the coach makes decisions and issues instructions, from democratic (relationship-oriented, participative) leadership, in which the coach involves athletes in decisions and emphasises support and communication. Neither is universally superior. Autocratic leadership tends to suit situations that demand fast decisions, that involve large groups or dangerous activities, or that arise when a team is inexperienced and needs clear direction; democratic leadership tends to suit situations with time to consult, smaller groups, experienced athletes, and where building long-term motivation and satisfaction matters. A skilful coach flexes between styles as the situation and the athletes require — precisely the "matching" that Chelladurai's model formalises and that Fiedler's contingency theory captures in its claim that a leader's effectiveness depends on the fit between their style and how favourable the situation is (defined by leader–member relations, task structure and the leader's position power).
The coach–athlete relationship itself has become a focus of research, often summarised through the interdependence of closeness (mutual trust, respect and liking), commitment (the intention to maintain the relationship over time) and complementarity (cooperative, responsive interaction in training and competition). A high-quality coach–athlete relationship — high in these qualities — is associated with better motivation, satisfaction and performance, and provides the social support that buffers athletes against the stress of competition and setbacks. This matters for the key research: Coach Effectiveness Training can be understood as an intervention that improves the quality of the coach–athlete relationship by making coaches more supportive and encouraging, which is why its effects on children's liking of their coach, enjoyment and self-esteem are so pronounced. It also links forward to the exercise-and-wellbeing topic, where a supportive instructor is part of what makes group activity psychologically beneficial. Keeping the relationship — not just the coach's isolated behaviours — in view helps explain why the behavioural changes CET produces have such broad psychological effects on young athletes.
The coach is the sport world's paradigm leader, and several theories illuminate what effective leadership involves.
| Approach | Core idea | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Trait ("great leader") | Leaders are born with leadership traits | Largely discredited — no consistent set of "leader traits" |
| Behavioural / social-learning | Leadership is a set of learnable behaviours | Underpins coach-training interventions like CET |
| Fiedler's contingency | Effectiveness depends on the match between leader style (task- vs relationship-oriented) and situational favourableness | Task-oriented leaders suit very favourable or very unfavourable situations; relationship-oriented suit moderate ones |
| Chelladurai's multidimensional model | Athlete satisfaction and performance depend on the fit between required, preferred and actual leader behaviour | The dominant sport-specific model |
Chelladurai's multidimensional model is especially useful for sport. It proposes that good outcomes (performance and athlete satisfaction) arise when three sets of leader behaviour align: the behaviour the situation requires, the behaviour the athletes prefer, and the behaviour the leader actually displays. The model also identifies dimensions of coaching behaviour — training and instruction, democratic behaviour, autocratic behaviour, social support, and positive feedback/rewarding behaviour — whose optimal mix depends on the athletes (age, experience, culture) and the situation. The practical message is that there is no single "best" coaching style; the best style is contingent and matched.
Because leadership is behavioural, it can be observed and changed — the insight behind Smith and Smoll's work. They developed the Coaching Behavior Assessment System (CBAS), an observational tool for coding what coaches actually do in real time, distinguishing reactive behaviours (responses to good performance, mistakes and misbehaviour — e.g. reinforcement, mistake-contingent encouragement, punishment) from spontaneous behaviours (coach-initiated instruction, organisation, general communication). CBAS made it possible to measure coaching behaviour objectively and then train coaches to do more of what helps and less of what harms — the foundation of Coach Effectiveness Training.
Why behavioural leadership matters here. The behavioural/social-learning approach is the theoretical engine of this topic's key research: if leadership is learned behaviour, then coaches can be trained to behave better, and the effects on athletes can be measured. This is a more optimistic and testable view than the "leaders are born" trait approach, and it turns leadership from a fixed quality into an intervention target.
Ronald Smith, Frank Smoll and Bill Curtis were concerned with youth sport and the enormous influence coaches have on children's experience — their enjoyment, self-esteem and likelihood of continuing or dropping out. Having developed the CBAS to measure coaching behaviour, they observed that certain coaching behaviours (encouragement, positive reinforcement, technical instruction given supportively) were associated with more positive outcomes for young players than others (punishment, criticism). The aim was to develop and evaluate a training programme for coaches — Coach Effectiveness Training — designed to increase supportive, encouraging behaviours and reduce punitive ones, and to test whether coaches trained this way produced better psychological outcomes (attitudes, enjoyment, self-esteem) in the children they coached.
The study was, in effect, a field experiment with youth-sport (Little League) baseball coaches and their young players. Coaches were assigned to an experimental group, who received the CET intervention before the season, or a control group, who coached as usual. The CET intervention was a cognitive-behavioural package: coaches were given guidelines encouraging desirable behaviours — positive reinforcement for effort and good performance, mistake-contingent encouragement (encouragement after errors), and technical instruction given supportively — and discouraging punitive, hostile responses; they were made aware of their own behaviour (using CBAS-based feedback and self-monitoring) and encouraged to adopt a "positive approach" centred on effort and enjoyment rather than winning.
Across the season, coaches' behaviour was observed (via CBAS) to check the training had changed what they did, and the young players were interviewed/surveyed at the end of the season to measure outcomes such as their attitudes toward the coach, teammates and the sport, their enjoyment, and their self-esteem. Comparing the players of trained versus untrained coaches allowed the researchers to assess CET's effects.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.