Applied Sports Psychology

7/28/2019 Applied Sports Psychology

1/18

This article was downloaded by:[MRST Consortium]

On: 31 January 2008

Access Details: [subscription number 787618456]

Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954

Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Applied Sport PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713768823

Team building through team goal settingW. Neil Widmeyera; Kimberly Ducharme bc

a Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontariob George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginiac Department of Physical Education, Wilfrid Laurier Univeristy,

Online Publication Date: 01 March 1997

To cite this Article: Widmeyer, W. Neil and Ducharme, Kimberly (1997) 'Team

building through team goal setting', Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9:1, 97 -

113

To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/10413209708415386

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413209708415386

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,

re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be

complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be

independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,

demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or

arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713768823http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413209708415386http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413209708415386http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713768823


2/18

JOURNAL OF APPLIEDSPORT PSYCHOLOGY 9,97-113 (1997)

Team Building Through TeamGoal SettingW. EILWIDMEYER

University of Waterloo, Waterloo. Ontariom B E R L Y DUCHARME

George Mason Universio , Fairfes VirginiaLinle is known about how team goal setting contributes to the products of theteam building proc as -t ed m cohesion and teamperformance. This article outlines(a) the nature and extent of group goal setting that occurs within and outside ofsport, (b) why team goal setting can enhance team cohesion and team perfor-mance, (c) the findings of research into the teamgoal-team cohesion and the teamgoal-team performance relationships. and (d) factors which modify these relation-ships. Based upon the research presented. it is proposed that when implementinga team goal setting program, sport psychologists should (a) establish long-termgoals first, (b) establish clear paths to long-term goals, (c) involve all team mem-ben in establishing team goals. (d) monitor team progress toward team goals, (e)reward team progress toward team goals, and (0 oster collective efficacy con-cerning the accomplishment of team goals. The paper concludes with recommen-dations for future research on team goal setting.

Sport researchers are increasingly interested in explaining why individ-uals select different physical activities, persist in those activities and com-plete them with varying degrees of nterest. Similarly, coaches and teach-ers are concerned with facilitating individual and team sporting behaviorto maximize both enjoyment and performance outcomes. Both the re-searchers and the practitioners have identified goal setting as a techniquecapable of influencing motivated action.The majority of goal setting programs that have been researched and/orimplemented in sport have involved the goals of individual athletes. Sincethe focus of this edition is teum building. this chapter will focus on teamAuthor Note W Neil Widmeyer. Department of Kinesiology; Kimberly DuChanne. nowThanks s extended to Ms.Donna Lang for her assistance in preparing this manuscript.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to W. Neil Widmeyer. De-

at kpartment of Physical Education, Wilfrid Laurier Univeristy.

partment of Kinesiology. University of Waterloo. Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1.97 1041 3200/97/00974)11351 OM)Copyright 1597 by AssociationfaM v u r e m n t o f Appl ied Spon Rycholoay

All righu of rcpmduclion n my form msmwd.


3/18

98 W I DMEER AND DUCHARMEgoal serting. Based on Lewins (1935) contention that the two major ob-jectives of any group are group maintenance (cohesion) and group loco-motion (performance), these outcomes can be viewed as the objectives ofteam building. Thus, determining how team goal setting relates to teambuilding can be viewed as determining how team goal setting relates toteam cohesion and team performance.This article has five specific purposes. The first objective is to introducethe reader to the nature and extent of group goal setting that takes placeoutside of and within sport. Secondly, we set out to show why group goalsetting can enhance group performance and group cohesion. Next, wepresent empirical evidence in order to demonstrate the existence of theserelationships. The fourth puxpose is to identify the factors which modifythe group goal-group pexfomance and group goal-group cohesion re-lationships. Finally, we endeavour to present a team goal setting programdesigned to maximize team performance and teamcohesion.The Nature of Group Goals

Goals have been defined in various ways ranging from performanceoutcomes (Garland, 1985; L a k e & Latham, 1990) to anticipatory cog-nitive regulators (Bandura, 1982) to affective reactions (Hyland, 1988).However, the aforementioned definitions have largely been used to de-scribe individual goal standards. Mills (1984) differentiated group goalsfrom individual goals by noting that group goals are shared perceptionsthat refer to a desirable state for the group as a unit rather than simplythe sum of the personal goals of individual group members.Similarly, Johnson and Johnson (1987) identified a group goal as. afuture state of affairs desired by enough members of a group to motivatethe group to work towards its achievement (p. 132). Furthermore, theyindicated that three aspects of group goal setting need to be addressed inorder to understand how group goals CM influence group behavior. Theseaspects are, (a) the group goal itself, (b) the tasks the group must performin order to achieve the goal, and (c) the processes of interaction amongmembers that are necessary for achieving the goal. For example, a hockeyteams goal may be to qualify for the end of season playoffs. The tasksthat the group must perform include practising daily and adhering to anoff-ice strength training program. The processes of interaction may be thedivision of responsibilities or roles, sharing of ideas, effective commu-nication and constructive resolution af conflicts. All of these aspects ofgroup goal setting are necessary to fully understand the group goal-groupbehavior relationship.

Zander (197 1) reminds us of the complexity of relations between groupand individual processes. In making this point in regards to goal setting,Zander (1971) identifies four types of goal relations at work: (a) an in-dividual members goals for self, (b) an individual members goals forthe group, (c) the groups goal, and (d) the groups goal for individualmembers. Coaches and sport psychologists must recognize the distinctive


4/18


5/18

100 WIDMEYER AND DUCHARMEanisms are not sufficient to attain the goal. Individuals must also engagein a process of problem solving to determine how the goal can be reached.This process involves developing suitable task strategies. Effective taskstrategiesare conscious or deliberate action plans that constitute the fourthgoal mechanism (Locke & Latham, 1990).Because of the widespread acceptance of the four mechanisms identi-fied by Locke and Latham as the mediators of the individual goals-individual performance relationship, many researchers have automaticallyassumed that the same mechanisms also mediate the group goal-groupperformance relationship. Weldon and Weingart (1988) proposed that sixprocesses actually mediate the group goal effect. The first process, ef-fort, was also proposed for individual goal setting. Weldon and Weingart(1988) saw effort as having the two components of intensity and duration.While research (Weingart, 1992; Weingart & Weldon, 1991) has supported the mediating effect of th is variable, it has also shown that theimpact of effort on performance decreaseswith increases in the co-ordi-nation demands of the task.For example, in identifying the second me-diator, Weldon and Weingart (1988) proposed that group goal setting leadsto group planning which, in turn, enhances group performance. This me-diator appears very similar to Locke and Lathams (1990) mechanism ofdeveloping effective strategies. The thrd mediator identified was perfor-mance monitoring. The existence of group goals encourages the moni-toring of group performance which, in turn, enhances motivation and thus,group performance. While not suggested by Locke and Latham, the pro-cess of monitoring could also be mediating the individual goal-individ-ual perfonmace relationship. The fourth mediator proposed, decreasedquality of performance, is believed to come into play when the groupsgoal is to increase the quantity of performance. Specifically, it is proposedthat by decreasing the quality of group performance, the quantity of groupoutcomes can be increased. The fifth mediator proposed by Weldon andWeingart (1988) is extra role behavior. Extra role behaviors are definedas behaviors that facilitate the performance of others or facilitate theco-ordination of group members (p. 557). An example of extra rolebehavior would be the help that members give others in their group. Thefinal mediator is morale-building communication. Weldon and Weingart(1988) suggested that group goals stimulate communication which canarouse emotion, stimulate enthusiasm, and build confidence in onesability to meet a goal. It is believed that these processes then lead toenhanced group performance. Of the six mediators, it appears that thelatter two, extra role behaviors and morale-building communication, aretruly unique to the group goal-group performance relationship.

While we can draw on Locke and Lathams work regarding individualgoal setting and Weldon and Weingarts proposals to suggest why groupgoals would enhance group performance. the basis for such a relationshipwas advanced many years earlier by Cartwright and Zander (1968). Spe-cifically, these authors proposed that group goals act as a steering mech-anism and as a pressure device for graup members. This direction and


6/18

TEAM GOAL SETTING 101pressure, in turn,should help the group achieve better performance. How-ever, later they imply that this improved performance results more directlyfrom enhanced group effort which, in turn. comes from an increased de-sire for group success. Thus, Cartwright and Zander appear to be pro-posing the following chain: group goal-ction and pressure for mem-bers-group desire for success-group effort-group performance.Do Group Goals Enhance Group Performance?

Surprisingly, very few studies have addressed the simple question ofDo groups with goals perform better than groups without goals? In-stead, most research has tested the effects of some potential moderator ofthe group goal-group performance relationship. For example, investiga-tors have set out to determine if group goals, like individual goals, aremore effective when they arc specific and challenging than when they arevague or do-your-best goals. Howevet, most of these investigations aswell as those which have tested other moderators of he group goal-groupperformance relationship have included a no goals condition in thedesign of their experiment. In many of these studies, this latter conditionproduced the lowest group performance.While there have been fewer investigations of the group goal-groupperformance relationship than of the individual goal-individual perfor-mance l ink, research conducted outside of sport does show that groupgoals can improve group performance (e.g., Becker, 1978; Buller & Bell,1986; Klein & Mulvey, 1989; Latham & Yukl, 1975; Matsui, Kakuyama& Onglatco, 1987; Ritchard. Jones, Roth. Stuebing & Ekeberg. 1988;Weingart, 1992; Weingart & Weldon. 1991; Weldon, Jehn & prodham,1991). The effectiveness of group goals are enhanced when group goalsare clear (e.g., Ishida, 1980) and difficult (e.g., Weingart, 1992). WhileBuller and Bell (1986) demonstrated that a group goal setting interventionwas more effective than a team building technique in improving the pro-ductivity of hard rock miners, a follow up study by Buller (1988) showedthat neither of these treatments were effective after fifteen months. Intheir examinationof organizational units on an airforce base, Pritchard etal (1988) found that group goal setting increased productivity 7596 overbaseline. It appears from the evidence cited here that group goals canhave the same impact in group performance as individual goal setting hason individual performance.Do Team Go als Enhance Team Performance In Sport?

There have been very few studies conducted in sport that have exam-ined the effect of group goals on group performance. Lee (1988) did findthat having team goals was positively related to team performance infemale field hockey teams. Williams and Widmeyer (1990) found thatwhile having a team goal was not in itself significantly related to the teamperformance of female intercollegiate golf teams, participation in the set-ting of such a goal was a predictor of team success. Recently, Anshel,Hardy, Burton, and Hichkad (1993) found that team goals reduced social


7/18

102 WIDMEYER AND DUCHARMEloafing among dyads performing a hand dynamometer task when perfor-mance goals were easy or moderate (i.e., 50% or 80% of maximum).Thus, not only should team goals improve team performance, but alsothere is some, albeit minimal, empirical evidence to demonstrate that teamgoals do have such an impact in sport.Why Should T eam Go al Setting Enhance Team Coh esion?

Similar to its effect on team performance, team goal setting can alsoinfluence t eamcohesion through both direct and indirect routes. Goalsetting can directly influences team cohesion by providing a team focus.A singular group focus promotes intergroup communication and facili-tates overall teamcommitment and satisfaction, all of which have beenshown to enhance t eamcohesion (widmeyet, Brawley C Carron, 1985).Team goals can indirectly affect team cohesion through the mediator ofincreased performance. As mentioned previously, goals arc guides foraction. Through group goals, the efforts of group members are plannedand coordinated (JohnsonC Johnson, 1987). thus, enhancing group per-formance. Because successful team performance contributes to i n dteam cohesion, teamgoals influence team cohesion through heir abilityto increase perfonnance. This relationship is circular in that the morecohesive a group, the more its members will be motivated to achieve itsgoals (JohnsonC Johnson, 1987).While having a team focus (goal) can enhance team cohesion, Johnsonand Johnson (1987) suggested three ways in which the participation ofindividual teammembers in the setting of team goals leads to increasedmotivation and overall team cohesion. Group participation in goal settingproduces, (a) a better matching of group goals to the motives of individualmembers which results in greater goal satisfaction and acceptance, (b) abetter understanding of group actions needed to achieve goals, and (c) abetter appreciation of the importance of individual roles and behaviorrequired for successful group action. A final way in which participativegoal setting facilitates group cohesion involves co-operation among groupmembers (Johnson & Johnson, 1987). More specifically, participating inthe development of group goals solidifies co-operation among groupmembers because individual members learn to recognize the actions re-quired by other members and themselves for group success as well as theways each individual must depend on the others.Do Team Go als Enhance Team C ohesion In Sport?

Widmeyet, Silva and Hardy (1992) asked 145 athletes from 13 teamsto indicate how important each of 35 variables were in enhancing taskand social cohesion in athletic teams. Having a cleady-stated team goalwas Seen as the most important contributor to task cohesion and the sec-ond most important for social cohesion. Acceptance of the team goal wasthe toprated contributor to social cohesion and tied as the top contributorto task cohesion. Widmeyer and Wfiams (1991) examined female golfteams and found that having a team goal was significantly related to


8/18

TEAM GOAL SEITING 103the two task measures of group cohesion and that recognizing the im-portance of achieving the team goal was significantly related to all fourGEQ measures of cohesion. More recently, Glenday and Widmeyer(1993) found that team goal variables (clarity, acceptance, importance,commitment, value, and satisfaction) predicted a significant percent (24-33) of the variance in three of the four G.E.Q. cohesion measures forintercollegiate athletes participating on interactive as well as coactivesport teams.The importance of participation in team goal setting was not listed byWidmeyer, Silva and Hardy (1992) as one of the potential contributors togroup cohesion. However, a closely-related option involving players inteamdecisions was seen by the athletes in their study as the fifth mostimportant contributor to both task and social cohesion.Recent evidence that participative goal setting by athletic t eams wasrelated to teamcohesion and certain motivational factors (perceptionsofteamgoal iaflumce, and teamgoal clarity) was reported by Brawley,C m n . and Widmeyer (1993). These researchers examined these rela-tionships at different time points during the competitive season of 13t eams involved in a variety of coactive and interactive sports (e.g., icehockey, volleyball, basketball, swimming). They found that cohesion,group goal clarity, and group goal influence were al l significantly relatedto the teams participative goal setting for competition.While there are only a few studies Widmeyer. Silva & Hardy, 1992;Widmeyer & Williams, 1991; and Brawley, Carron & Widmeyer, 1993)that have examined the group goal-group cohesion relationship in sport,the linlc between the variables appears rather consistent. Having a teamgoal and team participation in a team goal have been shown in at leastthree studies to enhance cohesion especially task cohesion of athleticteams.Techniques ThatMay Enhance the Effectiveness of Team Goals

Certain factors have been shown to increase the effectiveness of goalsetting in enhancing performance. These factors, which have usually beenstudied in conjunction with individual goals and individual krformance.have been referred to as moderating variables.Goal Specijicity and Diflculty . The hypothesis that specific, hard goalsenhance performance significantly more than no goals or do-your-bestgoals has generated the most sport research, however. no definitive con-clusions can be advanced. Weinberg and his colleagues (Garland, Wein-berg, Bruya, & Jackson, 1988; Hall, Weinberg,& Jackson, 1987; Stitcher,Weinberg. 8r Jackson, 1983; Weinberg. Bruya, & Jackson, 1985) foundno differences in performance between subjects given specific, difficultgoals versus do-your-best goals. On the other hand, equally well-repre-sented are investigations (Erbaugh & Bamett, 1986; Hall & Byrne, 1988:Hall, Weinberg,& Jackson, 1987; Weinberg, Bruya, Longino,& Jackson,1988) which have found that specific, difficult goals do significantly im-


9/18

104 WIDMEYERANDDUCHARMEprove simple task performance (e.g., situps, pushups, jumping task,handstrength).

While not always supported in the empirical research, it is generallyagreed upon by practitioners that specific and realistically difficult goalswill lead to enhanced performance over vague, easy, or impossible goals.Intuitively, for individual members to perform effectively within a group,they must know what the specific goals of the group arc and agree uponthe appropriateness of their level of difficulty. One advantage of havinga specific goal is that it helps communication among group members(Johnson & Johnson, 1987). The goal must be realistically challengingfirst, to motivate behavior change, and second, to provide a standardagainst which progress toward the goal can be evaluated. A second ad-vantage of a specific and realistic goal is that it helps to guide the groupin planning and carrying out the necessary actions (Johnson & Johnson,1987). It is crucial in the athletic environmentto express goals in specificand realistically challenging terms to bring about performance improve-ments (Gould, 1993).G w l Proximity. Loch and Lathams (1985) hypothesis that usingshort-term goals plus long-term goals leads to better performance thanusing long-term goals alone is a second area of goal setting research thathas received considerable sport attention. However, despite the endorse-ment of proximal goals (Bandura, 1982; Bandura&Schunk, 1981; Carver& Scheiec 1982; Kirschenbaum, 1985). other sport researchers (Hall &Byme, 1988; Weinberg et al., 1985; Weinberg et al.. 1988) have beenunable to detect performance differences among short-term. long-term,and short-term plus long-term goal groups involved in simple motor tasks.Various sport researchers (Carron, 1984; OBlock&Evans, 1984) haveemphasized the need for short-term goals because these objectives allowathletes to focus on immediate targets and to recognize immediate per-formance improvements. Gould (1993) cautioned that without short-termgoals, athletes may lose sight of their long-term objectives and the pro-gression of tasks required to obtain them. He goes on to suggest that formaximum goal effectiveness, an athlete should set a long-term goal orobjective as well as a series of short-term goals of increasing difficultythat lead directly to the long-term goal (Gould, 1993).P e l f o m n c e Goals versus Outcome Goals.One criticism of both sportand organizational research is the neglect of nonperformance measuresthat may be affected by goal setting. Goal setting research, with fewexceptions, has focused primarily on increased performance outcome asthe dependent mcasm of interest. This excludes consideration of goalsetting effects on other variables, such as more consistent performance.An important distinction between quality and quantity goals was sug-gested by Austin and Bobko (1985). They noted that when goal settingresearch focused on unidimensional quantity goals, it ignored possibleeffects of goal setting on quality, processsriented, individual performanceaccomplishments.One problem associated with outcome-dependent goals is that athletes


10/18

TEAM GOAL SETMNG 105have only partial control over outcome achievement (Burton, 1989).De-spite an outstanding personal performance, an athlete or team may stilllose to an opponent who achieves an even better performance. A n out-come-based, quantity goal of winning necessitates classification of losingas goal failure while a perfonnance-based, quality goal would ensureperceptions of degrees of goal accomplishment regardless of the oppo-nent's performance. By emphasizing personal performance goals ratherthan absolute outcome goals. greater opportunities are presented to indi-vidual athletes and teams for achieving success (Gould, 1993).

Team versus Individual Goals. Locke & Latham (1990) suggested thatgroup goals enhance performance as effectively as individual goals. Inaddition to individual goals, group goals are necessary when attemptingto change group behavior (Locke & Latham, 1990). In support of th i sconclusion. Zander (1971) and Johnson and Johnson (1987) stated thatteam goals must take precedence over individual goals. The group goalsagreed upon by the group members must be relevant to the individualneeds of these members. If group goals are not relevant for teammem-bers, then more important individual goals may interfere with teamprog-ress. More specifically, individual goals may become hidden agendas thatare unknown to other team members (Johnson & Johnson, 1987). Un-known personal goals are capable of destroying both group effectivenessand group cohesion. Group communication is required to increase boththe salience of group goals and consensus among members of the group'sobjectives while decreasing the emphasis placed on individual desires.Feedback on Goal Progress. Goal-setting studies with individuals haveshown that feedback on progress toward goal accomplishment improvessubsequent performance (Erez, 1977; Lake, Shaw, Saafi & Latham,1981; Strang, Lawrence & Fowler, 1978). In the 1960s. it was found thatfeedback containing both individual and group performance informationwas more effective than that containing only group performance infor-mation (e.g., Zajonc, 1962; Zander & Wolfe, 1964). However, in thesestudies the impact of goal setting was not examined.Matsui et al (1987) found that the effectiveness of task feedback ingroup goal setting is maximized if the feedback involves both individualand group performance information. In studies conducted in work envi-ronments, individuals are strongly motivated to reach their own personalgoals (e.g.. recognition, job security, salary increase, etc.). whereas reach-ing a group (i.e., company) objective such as greater production outputoften holds little value for them. This situation is very different from thatwhich exists in sport where individual athletes continually state that per-sonal recognitions such as batting champion or M.V.P. honours are sec-ondary to achieving team success. Therefore, conclusions based on re-search in the work setting may not be applicable directly in the sportenvironment.Likewise, the reader should be reminded that this list of moderatorsand rationale for their existence has been based primarily, but not exclu-sively (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1982; Zander, 1971). on research ex-


11/18

106 WIDMEYERANDDUCHARMEamining the goals and performance of individuals. Thus, we cannot becertain that all of these factors (and not others) moderate the groupgoals-group performance relationship. However, as was the case withthe mediating mechanisms advanced by Weldon and Weingart (1988). themoderators observed among individuals seem logical for group goal set-ting effects. Nevertheless, we would recommend that researchers testthese moderators in sport teams and other small groups.

Establishing a Team Goal Setting Program inAthletic TeamsPrinciple # I : Establish t o n g Term Goals First

Although short term goals are usually more realistic and likely to havea higher rate of accomplishment, it is more likely that athletes and coachesidentify the ultimate goals that they want their team to achieve. Whileindustrial organizations typically announce threc year, five year and eventen year plans, the long term goals of an athletic teamusually do not gobeyond one athletic season.The reason for this could be that the athletessee their teammembership, that of their teammates, and that of theiropponents as very transitory and, thus, do not feel confident in settinggoals for a period longer than the present season.Usually, the season long goals of an athletic team are not performancegoals, but rather are expressed in terms of performance outcomes suchas winning the league championship, finishing among the top ttmeteams in the league or making the playoffs. While athletic teamsdesire such ends, they must realize that the accomplishment of such goalsdepends not only on their teams performance, but also the performanceof their opponents.Based upon the literature cited earlier, long tern goals like short termgoals should be specific and difficult (i.e., challenging) but realistic. Toestablish such goals, it is necessary to have knowledge of the strengthsand weaknesses of ones own team as well as those of opponents. There-fore, coaches often remind their players of how their team fared the pre-vious season and what has happened to their team and to their opponentsin the interim period. Thus, a high school basketball coach might saysomething l i e :

Well gang last year we finished third in this league with 12 wins and 6 losses.Weve only lost one player to graduation and all of our state rs have returned. Also,weve picked up Johnson and Henderson as transfers and there arc some outstand-ing freshman trying out with the team. I cant tell you much about our oppositionbut we do know that the two teams that finished ahead of us last year each lostthrre staters. Mind you. of those clubs, Forest Heights recruited Wilson Thomas,one of the top freshman in the country, and they still have those two guards wholed the conference in scoring last year. So what do you think? Where will we finishand how many wins arc we going to have this season?

The setting of specific and difficult but realistic goals by individualshas been shown to lead to better individual performance. Thus, the es-


12/18

TEAM GOAL SETTING 107tablishment of team goals that are specific and difficult but realistic shouldprovide a team building strategy that leads to improved team performance.Principle #2: Establish Clear Paths To The Long Term Goals

The paths to long term performance outcome goals should contain (a)short term performance outcome goals, (b) short term performance goals.and (c) short term process goals.Finishing first in the league-six months and eighty games into thefuture-may Seem like such a distant objective that this performance out-come can lose its salience for the group. However, the season could bedivided into ten segments. Then, the teams outcome goal for each eight-game segment could be to obtain 10 points of a possible 16 points (i.e..based on two points for a win and one point for a tie). To increase thechances of reaching outcome goals, it is necessary for teams to Set per-formance goals such as a hockey teams target of 15 shots on net perperiod or a basketball teams objective of having a team free throw shoot-ing percentage that exceeds 80 per cent. These are usually referred to asperformance goals because they depend less on the play of he oppositionthan do performance outcome goals.The third type of goals, process goals, are targets established for thecomponent actions that make up a teams performance. In hockey, thesemight be the winning of faceoffs or decreasing the number of two on onechances by the opposition. In basketball, process goals could be increas-ing the number of steals and reducing the number of turnovers. Again, itmust be emphasized that the levels for these objectives must be specificand challenging but realistic. To be specific, the goals must be expressedin quantitative terms and have a time frame associated with them. Forexample, one process goal of a basketball team could be to reduce thenumber of turnovers to five per half during their next six games. To bechallenging but realistic, these standards must be based on prior perfor-mances by the team in similar situations.In determining what processes make up a performance, athletes inputshould be obtained. However, their responses should be augmented bythe coach who has more experience and a more global perspective onwhat contributes to team effectiveness.Principle #3: Involve All Team Members In Establishing Team Goals

A worker on the assembly line at Chrysler, General Motors or Ford isunlikely to play a role in establishing the goals of these organizations. Infact, it is unlikely that these individuals would have much of a desire tobecome involved in such a process. However, members of an athletic teamare very interested in the collective fate of their team. and feel that theycan have some impact on team outcomes. Earlier, it was noted that par-ticipation in group goal setting enhances the acceptance of group goalsand, as such, enhances the chances of team success and improved teamcohesion.In having athletes provide input into the establishment of team goals,


13/18

108 WIDMEYER AND DUCHARMEthey should not be asked to do this publicly. The reason for this is becausepublic proclamations usually are strongly influenced by peer pressure and,therefore, often result in unrealistic expectations for the group. To avoidthis, the coach, after providing necessary input on the team's and theiropponents' strengths and weaknesses, should ask each member to de-scribe, privately on a piece of paper, what hdshe believes the team's goalsshould be in regards to the team's placement in the league standings andtheir number of wins. After collecting these data, the coach can thendisplay the array of responses on the blackboard. If a great range exists,the coach can ask for explanations of extreme positions. The coach canthen have athletes reconsider their targets and set new ones based on thediscussion among their teammates.Principle#4: Progress Toward Team Goals Should be Monitored

Long-tem and short-term goals should be posted and athletes' progresstoward these objectives should be monitored and recorded. Several Na-tional Hockey League teams have blackboards in their dressing rooms onwhich they keep upto-date statistics on the number of wins, losses, ties,and points the team has to date. This procedure could well be more ef-fective if the results to date were plotted in regards to the expected goalperformance to date. The importance of monitoring progress toward groupgoals was discussed by Weldon and Weingart (1988) when they identifiedthis process as one of the six group mechanisms of p u p goal setting.Monitoring not only acts as a motivator by indicating how well one isaccomplishing one's objectives, but also it provides a constant reminder(i.e.. a focus) of the objectives of the team.Principle #5: Rewarding Team Progress Toward Team Goals

When Mike Keenan was appointed coach of the Chicago Black Hawksin 1988, he requested that management phase out al l individual playerincentive plans (e.g., bonuses for making the all-star team or scoring 100points). In place of these individual rewards, Keenan instituted a seriesof team bonuses which were based on team perfomance outcomes. Spe-cifically, every player on the team was given $200 if the team attainedsix points in a five game segment and another $100 if the team allowedfewer than an average of three goals against them per game during thistime span. While these amounts of money were s m a l l relative to theplayers' salaries, most of which exceeded $200,000, nevertheless, theywere effective group incentives which provided a group focus. Coaches,management, and even the players agreed that t h i s scheme did a greatdeal to make individual athletes less selfish, and the entire team moreunified and more successful. In amateur sport settings, where monetaryrewards are not applicable, coaches and sport psychologists should en-deavour to publicly praise team accomplishments.


14/18

TEAM GOAL SETTING 10 9Principle #6: Foster Collective Efica cy Concerning Team GoalAttainment

Garland (1985) in his Cognitive Mediation Theory predicted that themore confidencean ndividual has for achieving a specific individual goal,the better shehe will perform.Similarly, it can be proposed that the great-er the collective efficacy that the team has concerning its ability to ac-complish its objectives, the greater the team success. It has been onlyrecently that collective efficacy has received attention by sport research-ers. Thus, the relationship proposed here has not yet been tested exten-sively. Feltz, Corcoran and Lirigg (1989) did find that team efficacy hada positive effect on team performance in intercollegiate ice hockey. Whilethis support is minimal, nevertheless, the link m a k e s intuitive sense, anduntil disproven, should be adopted. Therefore. sport psychologists andcoaches arc advised to employ techniques that develop collective efficacy.Specifically. the coaches should try to ensure some group success. Thiscan be accomplished by preparing the teamwell, scheduling exhibitionmatches against beatable opponents, and developing realistic expectationswithin the players concerning team outcomes. Perhaps, even more effec-tive would be to have the coach or the sport psychologist verbally per-suade the team that they had the ability and preparation to accomplishtheir goals.

Future Directions for Team Goal SettingA future directions section in any manuscript usually consists of rec-ommendations for future researchers and for practitioners. Because of theinfancy of team goal setting as a construct in the psychology of sport. itwould appear that at this point in time suggestions for research are moreimportant than are principles of application.The first recommendation is simply that more research be conductedon team goal setting in sport. At present, we have very little basic de-scriptive data regarding the nature and the extent of the team goal settingthat takes place on athletic teams at various levels of competition in dif-ferent sports.Unfortunately, there has been a stigmE attached to descrip-tive research implying that it is inferior to inferential studies. Anyonewith such a bias should be reminded that science is a stochastic processsuch that we cannot have any explanation, prediction, or ultimately con-trol of phenomena until we have a clear description of the concepts/constructs.If we reexamine Zanders (1971) typology of goals, we can see wherewe have made contributions to knowledge and where we have fallenshort. For example, research has been conducted on individual members

goals for themselves and for their group (i.e., team). However, a distinc-tion between members goals for the team and the teams goal has notbeen made clear nor has there been any real examination of the teamsgoal for individual members. Thus, these areas are fertile ground for fu -ture research on team goal setting.In Zanders (1971) paper, it was pointed out that just as findings from


15/18

110 WIDMEYERANDDUCHARMEthe industrial and laboratory research could not be automatically appliedto sport research, so also results of individual goal setting do not neces-sarily apply to team goal setting. An obvious example of t h i s latter pointis in regards to the mediators of the team goal-team performance rela-tionship. Here, Weldon and Weingart (1988) proposed six mechanismsfor group goal effects as opposed to the four mechanisms which Luckeand Latham (1990) made popular in explaining individual goal effects.Specifically, the two group mechanisms of extra role behavior andmorale-building communication should be examined as mediators ofthe team goal setting-team performance relationship in sport.Since team building can be conceived as developing team cohesion aswell as team effectiveness, we must examine the basic team goals-teamcohesion relationship to determine its strength and direction, and thenmake effortsto uncover the mediators and moderators of this relationship.

SUMMARY: TEAM GOAL SE lT N G AND TEAM BUILDINGTo date, little research has been conducted on he team goal-team build-ing relationship. However, there is theory to suggest and some evidenceto support the notian that team goal setting can enhance both team co-hesion and teameffectiveness. At the present time, prescriptions for im:proving the effectiveness of team goal setting arc based to a large extenton research that has identified the factors which enhance the effectivenessof individual goal setting. Therefore, a great deal more group research isneeded in both laboratory and field settings to verify the effectiveness ofthese techniques. Optimism can be drawn from the fact that the athletes,themselves, believe that teamgoal setting variables are the most importantfactors in promoting group cohesion in athletic teams and that these fac-tors do contribute to improving team performance.REFERENCES

Anshel. K.M.. Hardy. C.J.. Burton. D.. & Hichkad. N.R. 1993, Oct.). 7 k ffecr of goalso n social loafins. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for theAdvancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Montrcal. PQ.Austin, J. & Bobko. F! (1985). Goal setting theory: Unexplortd areas and future researchneeds. Joumal of Occupational Psychology, 58. 289-308.Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologisr,

Bandura, A. & Schunk, D.H. (1981). Cultivating competence. self-efficacy. and intrinsicinterest through proximal self-motivation. Joumal of fersonaliry and Social Psychol-ogy, 41. 586-598.Becker. LJ . (1978). Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: A field studyof residential energy conservation. Journal of Applied Psychology; 63. 428-433.B u l k F & Bell, C. (1986). Effects of team building and goal seting on productivity. Afield expenment. Academy of Managrmenr Journal, 23, 3-40.Buller, F!E (1988). Long Term Performance Effecu of Goal Setting and Team BuildingInterventions in an Underground Silver Mine. Organizational Development Joumal.

Burton, D . (1992). The JekyVHyde nature of gods: Reconceptualizinggoal setting in sport.

37. 122-147.

82-93.


16/18

TEAMGOAL SETTING 111In T.Horn (Ed.),Advances in spon psychology. (pp. 267-297). Champaign. IL: HumanKinetics.

Weigand. D. (1993. Oct.). Back to the basics:Surveying collegiate athletes 10 identify effective goal setting practices in s p o r t . Pap-erprcsented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of AppliedSport Psychology, Montreal. PQ.Brawley. L.R.. Carron. A.V.. &Widmeyer. W.N. (1992). The nature of group goals in spor tteams: A phenonemonological approach. The Sport Psychologist,6, 23-333.Brawley. L.R.. Canun. A.V., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1993). The influence of the group andit s cohesiveness on perceptions of group goal-related variables. Journal of Spon andExercise Psychology, IS. 245-260.Carron. A.V. (1984). Motivation: Implications for coaching and teaching. London, ON:

Cartwight. D. & Zander. A. (1%8). Group dynamics: Research and theory. New Yo&.Ny:Harper& Row.Carver. C.S. & Scheier. M.E (1982). Control theory: A uscful conceptual fhmeworic forpersonality. social. clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111-135.Duda, J.L. (1986. June). Toward a development theory of childrens motivation in spon:7he consideration of the variations in goals. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity. Scotts-dale, Az.Erbaugh. S.J. & Bamett. M.L. (1986. June). Egecrs of modelling and goal setting on thejwnping performance of primary-grade children. Paper presented at the North AmericanSociety for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Scotudale. AZ.

h i . M. (1977). Feedback: A necessary condition for the goal-performance relationship.Journal of Applied Psychology. 62, 624627.Feltz. D.. Cocoran. J. & Lirigg. C. (1989). Relationships among team confidence, spor tconfidence, and hockey perfonnance. Psychology of Motor Behavior and Sport 1988Abstracts. Champaign. IL:North American Society for Psychology of Sport and Phys-ical Activity.Garland, H. (1985). A cognitive mediation theory of task goals and human performance.Motivation and Emotion. 9, 345-367.Garland, H..Weinberg. R., Bruya, L.. & Jackson, A. (1988). Self-efficacy and enduranceperformance: A longitudinal field test of cognitive mediation theory. Applied Psychol-ogy: An International Review, 37(4). 381-394.Glenday. L.M.. & Widmeyer, W.N. (1993. Oct.). Describing and explaining gendcr differ-enkes in the cohesion of athletic teams. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAssociation For The Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Monveal. PQ.Gould, D. (1993). Goal setting for peak petfonnance (2nd ad.). (pp. 158-169). MountainView, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.Hall, H.K.,Weinberg. R.,& Jackson, A. (1987). Effects of goal specificity. goal difficulty,and information feedback on endurance performance. Journal of Spon Psychology, 9,43-54.

Hyland. M.E. (1988). Motivational control theory: An integrative framework. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 55. 642-65 1.Ishida. H. 1980). The effects of varied clarity of group goal and substeps upon groupproblem solving. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 371-384.Johnson. D.W. & Johnson, EF! (1987). Joining together: Group therapy and group skills(3rd ed.). E n g l e w d Cliffs, New Jersey: Rcntice-Hall.

Burton, D.. Weinberg. R.. Yukelson. D.

sports Dynamics.


17/18

112 WIDMEYER AND DUCHARMEKirschenbaum, D.S. (1985). Proximity and specificity of planning: A position paper Cog-

ni t ive Therapy & Research, 9. 489-506.Klein, H.J. & Mulvey, P.W. (1989, August). Performance goals n group settings: A n in -vesrigation of group and goal processes. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meetingof the Academy of Management, Washington,DC.Latham. G.P..&Yukl, G.A. (1975). Assigned versus participative goal setting with educatedand uneducated wood workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60. 99-302.Lee, C. (1988). The relationship between goal setting. sclf-efficacy. and female field hockeyteam performance. Internarional Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 147- I6 I .Lewin. K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York McGraw-Hill.Locke. E.A. (1991). Problems with goal-setting research in sports-and their solutions.

Locke. E.A. & Latham. G.P. 1985). The application of goal setting to sports.Journal ofLocke. E.A. B Latham. G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and rask motiwarion Engle-Locke, E.A.. Shaw. KN.. aari. L.M.. & Latham. G.P. (1981). Goal setting and task per-Psychological Bullering, 90, 25-1 52.Matsui. T.. Kakuyama, T.. & Onglatco. M.L. 1987). Effects of goals and feedback ofMills. TM. (1984). The sociology of smull groups (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Ren-OBlock, F.R. &Evans, EH. (1984). Goal setting as a motivational technique. In J.M. Silva& R.S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundarions of spor t . (pp. 188-196). Cham-paingn,L uman Kinetics.Pritchard. R.D.. Jones. S.D..Roth, EL.. Stuebing, K.K..& Ekeberg. S.E. (1988). Effectsof group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity.Journal

of Applied Psychology, 73. 139-145.Stitcher,T., Weinberg. R., & Jackson A. (1983. May). Goal serring and it s efecrs on en -durance performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of TAHPERD, Corpuschristi. Tx.Strang. H.R.. Lawrence, E.C.,& Fowler, P.C. (1978). Effects of assigned goal level andknowloedge of results on arithmetic computation: A laboratory study. Journal of Ap -plied Psychology, 63. 446-450.Weinberg. R.S. (1992). Goal setting and motor performance: A review and critique. In G .Roberts (Ed.),Motivation in sport and exercise. (pp. 177-197). Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics.Weinberg. R.S., Bruya L.D., & Jackson, A. (1985). .The effectsof goal proximity and goalspecificity on endurance performance. Journal of Sport Psychology. 7 , 296-305.Weinberg. R.S.. Bruya, L.D.. Longino. J., & Jackson, A. (1988). Effect of goal proximityand specificity on endurance performance of primary-grade children. Journul of Sportand Exercise Psychology, 10, 8 1-9 1.Weingart. L.R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, andplanning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77.682-693.Weingan. L.R.. L Weldon, E. (1991). Rocesses that mediate the relationship between agroup goal and group member performance. Human Performance. 4. 33-54.Weldon. E.. Jehn. K.A.. & Pradhan, P. (1991). Rocesses that mediate the relationshipbetween a group goal and improved group performance. Joumal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 61. 555-569.Wcldon, E..&Weingart. L.R. 1988. August). A theory of group goals and group pe r f o r -

Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8, 31 1-316.sport Psychology, 7, 205-222.wood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.f o m c e 19684980.

performance in groups. Journul of Applied Psychology, 72, 407-415.tice-Hall.


18/18

TEAM GOAL S E T l W G 113munce. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management. Ana-heim, CA.

Widmeyer, W.N. Brawley. L.R.. & Camon. A.V. (1985). The measurement of cohesion insport teams: The group environment questionnaire. London. ON.: Sports Dynamics.Widmeyer. W.N., Silva. J.M.. Hardy,C.J.1992 October). The narure ofgroup cohesioni n sporr reams: A Phenomonological approuch. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology. ColoradoSprings,CO.Widmeyer. W.N.. & Williams, J.M. (1991). Predicting cohesion in a coacting sport SmallGroup Research, 22. 548-570.Williams. J.M. &Widmeyer, W.N. (1990, September). The cohesion-performance outcomerelationship in coacting teams. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association forthe Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology. San Antonio. TX.Zajonc. R.B. (1962). The effects of feedback and probability of p u p uccess on individualand group performance. Hunan Relations, IS , 149-161.Zander, A. (1971). Motives and gw k in gmups. New YO& Ny: Acadmic Ress.

Zandcr, A., &WoIfe. D. 1964). AdministrPtive rewards and coordination among committeemembm. Administrative Science Quurrerly, 9, 50-65.Manuscript submitttd: November 15. 1995Revision received: May 3, 1996

Documents

Applied Sports Psychology