The Sport Psychologist, 2012, 26, 584-603
© 2012 Human Kinetics, Inc.
www.TSP-Journal.com
CASE STUDY
Using Team Building Methods
With an Ice Hockey Team:
An Action Research Case Study
Esa Rovio
LIKES Research Center for Sport and Health Sciences
Monna Arvinen-Barrow
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Daniel A. Weigand
Northwest Christian University
Jari Eskola
University of Tampere
Taru Lintunen
University of Jyväskylä
Research investigating the use of several team building (TB) interventions collectively in one case study is sparse. The purpose of this study was to evaluate,
via action research, the process of implementation of a season-long (12 months)
multifaceted TB program with a junior league ice hockey team in Finland. The
team consisted of 22 players, aged 15–16 years, and three coaches. Inductive
content analyses revealed that performance profiling, individual and group goal
setting, and role clarification produced additional value to the TB program. Group
norms became a vital part of group goal setting. The results are discussed in
relation to existing definitions of TB and the importance of using a multifaceted
approach to TB.
During the last few decades, development of a well-functioning group or
team has been one of the core interests among the professionals in industrial or
Rovio is with LIKES Research Center for Sport and Health Sciences, Jyväskylä, Finland. ArvinenBarrow is with the Dept. of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, WI. Weigand is with
the Dept. of Arts and Sciences, Northwest Christian University, Eugene, OR. Eskola is with the Dept.
of Education, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland. Lintunen is with the Dept. of Sport Sciences,
University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
584
Team Building with an Ice Hockey Team 585
organizational (I/O) and sport settings. Team building (TB), as a concept, was first
introduced to the sport setting in the mid 1990s, and since the publication of the
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology special issue on team building (1997), interest
in TB in sport has increased.
Definitions of Team Building
The definitions of TB in sport have been inconsistent in nature (Brawley & Paskevich, 1997; Crace & Hardy, 1997; Yukelson, 1997). For example, Yukelson (1997)
defined TB as an “ongoing, multifaceted process where group members learn how
to work together for a common goal, and share pertinent information regarding the
quality of team functioning for the purpose of establishing more effective ways of
operating” (p. 73). Brawley and Paskevich (1997) defined TB as a “process that
might be more accurately characterized as team enhancement or team improvement
for task and social purposes” (p. 14). Moreover, Midura and Glover (2005) stated
that TB is “the cooperative process that a group of individuals uses to solve both
physical and mental challenges” (p. 1).
In the I/O setting, in contrast to sport, TB definition appears to be more consistent and comprehensive. For example, Liebowich and Demeuse (1982) defined TB
as “a long-term, data base intervention in which intact work groups experientally
learn, by examining their structures, purposes, norms, values, and interpersonal
dynamics, to increase their skills for effective teamwork (p. 2). Similarly Svyantek,
Goodman, Benz, and Gard (1999) defined TB as a process that is “designed to help
work groups improve the way they accomplish tasks by enhancing the interpersonal and problem-solving skills of team members” (p. 265). In essence, the TB
researchers in I/O setting have defined TB as a long-term, mutual, and participatory learning process in which the members of a group are helped to improve team
effectiveness from the view of the task and interpersonal relationships (e.g., Beer,
1980; Liebowitz & Demeuse, 1982; Svyantek et al., 1999).
The current study will adopt a definition identified by Rovio, Arvinen-Barrow,
Weigand, Eskola, and Lintunen (2010). In their review, Rovio et al. combined the
existing definitions of TB from I/O settings and combined them with those commonly used in sport and concluded that the purpose of TB is to promote and enhance
the effectiveness of a group, and that such enhancement can be made through
task- (e.g., goal-setting, role clarification) or through group/relationship-oriented
(e.g., interpersonal-relation schemes, problem-solving) approaches. They saw TB
as a longitudinal, planned, and structured on-going, dynamic process of learning,
which requires close mutual and continuous participation from all parties involved.
Approaches to Team Building
To ensure coherence with the definition by Rovio et al. (2010), it therefore seems
appropriate to also adopt the key approaches to TB used in both sport and I/O settings
for this study. These include goal setting (i.e., the process of establishing specific,
measurable, and time-targeted objectives), role clarification (i.e., specifying the
distribution of work by discussing and negotiating roles that are necessary for the
team to accomplish task), development of interpersonal relations (i.e., exertion of
586 Rovio et al.
power, communication or cooperation in the team; Beer, 1976, 1980), and problem
solving (i.e., defining problems affecting team functioning and finding solutions to
them; Buller, 1986; Dyer, 1987), all of which have been specifically identified as
key methods for enhancing the effectiveness of a group by Rovio et al.’s definition.
The application of possible TB approaches to sport research also appears to
be equivocal. With regards to goal setting, much research exists investigating goal
setting within individual sport context, but research on team sports and on varying
competitive levels is limited (Rovio, Eskola, Gould, & Lintunen, 2009). Furthermore, the research on role clarity is currently in its infancy (Eys, Schinke, & Jeffery,
2007); however, some evidence exists in support of positive role perceptions having
positive relationships with group cohesion (i.e., a dynamic process that is reflected
in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of
its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs),
individual satisfaction (i.e., pleasure or contentment deriving from being involved
in an activity or action), and efficacy (i.e., the ability to successfully achieve an
intended result; Eys et al., 2007). The development of interpersonal relations and
problem solving research is sparse, thus in need of further research (for more
details, see Rovio et al., 2010).
Despite clear suggestions on applicable TB approaches to sport, the practical
approaches to TB research have taken many different forms. For example, Dunn and
Holt (2003) described their study as having its focus on “team building principles of
goal setting, interpersonal relations, group problem solving, and role clarification”
(p. 354). In addition, they aimed to employ methods to increase personal responsibility and team accountability. In addition, when describing the implemented
TB program, a range of other methods was also presented: using coping strategies
during stressful periods, recognizing individual differences, and developing collective confidence. Interestingly, only a few sport TB programs followed the four
main team building approaches presented and used in the I/O domain (for more
details, see Rovio et al., 2010).
It appears that in sport, TB has taken many different forms: increasing cohesion in a range of ways (Carron & Spink, 1993; Newin, Bloom, & Loughead,
2008; Prapavessis, Carron, & Spink, 1996; Spink & Carron, 1993), adopting a
task-orientation approach (Alonso, Kavussanu, Cruz, & Roberts, 1997; Nikander,
2007), using goal setting (Pierce & Burton, 1998), or through some form of mutualsharing activity (Dunn & Holt, 2004; Holt & Dunn, 2006). Exploring the effect of
one single TB method, instead of adopting a multifaceted approach, is problematic
because of the nature of TB process. As TB is a multivariate treatment process, it
should therefore be studied as a multivariate issue. Although some researchers have
employed a range of TB methods within one study (Bloom & Stevens, 2002; Dunn
& Holt, 2003; Stevens & Bloom, 2003; Voight & Callaghan, 2001), they have usually measured the effects of these TB methods before and after interventions using
quantitative research methods. This can be problematic because adopting a primarily
positivist approach to TB research—by measuring effectiveness merely through
experimental designs (i.e., comparing pre/post intervention scores)—information
about factors and variables that impact the process in which the change in effectiveness occurs, will be lost. Moreover, researchers have not evaluated the effects of
several TB interventions collectively in one study. In addition, TB programs have
been short-term interventions, not examining TB processes over a longer period
of time (e.g., an entire season).
Team Building with an Ice Hockey Team 587
Use of Action Research in Team Building
Fortunately, the use of action research methodology can be used to overcome the
limitations mentioned above. Action research is a social process of collaborative
learning realized by group of people, who join together in changing the practices
through which they interact in a shared social world (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005).
For example, action research has been used to study phenomena such as youth
perceptions on psychosocial sports climate (Gould, Flett, & Lauer, 2012), as well
as coach-athlete interactions during elite competitions (D’Arripe-Longueville,
Saury, Fournier, & Durand, 2001). Moreover, action research has been used in
organizational settings to gain an understanding of task effectiveness, different
variables and their interactions affecting task effectiveness, self-awareness of those
involved in tasks, as well as for exploring the effectiveness of new methods of task
functioning. Action research, by its intent, then, is immersed in the intervention
conducted, and it engages the participants in the process of task development, which
in turn will produce the data for analysis.
Given the above, Beer (1976) has suggested that due to the longitudinal processoriented nature of TB, it should be connected to action research methodology.
Conducting action research in the field allows the TB investigator to obtain rich data
with thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973), as a result of the long-term implementation
of the intervention. Moreover, action research enables opportunities for continuous
planning, acting, and reflecting on the data-collection processes, feedback generated
discussion, and problem solving. In addition, the workability (Heikkinen, Huttunen,
& Syrjälä, 1997) of the intervention can also be tested in practice, which in turn
will increase the researcher’s understanding of the phenomenon under investigation, thus leading to workable practice.
Role of Performance Profiling in Team Building
One technique that has not been well used in TB research, and definitely not used
in action research assessing TB, is performance profiling (PP). PP has been found
to be an excellent method for identifying key areas of performance that need to
be developed because athletes become central in self-determining goals (Butler &
Hardy, 1992; Butler, Smith, & Irwin, 1993). Specifically, during the first phase of
PP, key characteristics of a successful performance are identified by those involved
in the process (e.g., the athlete, sport psychologist, a coach). This process includes
clearly identifying roles, as well as both individual and team goals (when relevant).
This will then be followed by the process of rating current levels of performance on
each of the key characteristics identified. The next phase of the PP process involves
the identification of key areas in need of development, followed by the process
of setting appropriate goals for the individuals (and the team, if relevant) for the
upcoming season. Finally, strategies are developed for achieving the identified goals.
Given the lack of action research assessing TB in sport, especially those based
on the combined definition of TB identified by Rovio et al. (2010), and the lack of
research assessing the effect of PP on TB in sport, the purpose of this study was
to evaluate, via action research, the effectiveness of a season-long (12 months)
TB program with a junior league ice hockey team. By focusing on the specific
TB methods chosen (i.e., performance profiling, role clarifying, and individual/
group goal setting), and the actual process of implementing a TB program, it was
588 Rovio et al.
anticipated that this study would provide useful and practical information for those
working in the applied field.
Method
Participants
A junior Scandinavian league (highest national level) ice hockey team from Finland
was selected for the study. The team consisted of 22 players, aged 15–16 years.
On average, the players had been playing ice hockey for 9 years, and during the
season, nine players were also selected to play for the Finnish U-16s national team.
The head coach had 11 years of coaching experience at junior and elite levels. He
has also worked for 2 years as the head coach in a local ice hockey club and as an
educator at the national ice hockey association. He also holds Finnish Ice Hockey
Association (FIHA) qualifications in junior ice hockey coaching and a master’s
degree in physical education.
Role of the First Author
An essential part of the research process was the role of the first author. He had 25
years experience of team sport as a player, and had doctoral-level training in sport
and exercise psychology. The first author served dual roles in this study. During the
season, he was allowed an insider’s role as a process consultant (Schein, 1999) to
the head coach and the team. Simultaneously, it was necessary to adopt an outsider’s
role when analyzing and interpreting data. The use of a research team to support
the first author enhanced objectivity.
Informed Consent
Before any data collection, all of the participants and their parents were informed
about the research, and the role of the first author in the process. All of the players were all assured that the data would be treated with confidentiality, and that at
no point could it be traced back to as individuals. All of participants gave assent
to the research, and were given an opportunity to withdraw at any point during
the research. In addition, parental debriefings and information sessions were held
regularly throughout the season.
Design
As the aim of this case study (Dobson, 2001; Stake, 2005) was to evaluate the
season-long TB program with a junior league ice hockey team, an action research
methodology (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005) was adopted. Consistent with the cyclic
nature and the main principles of action research, the study progressed through a
continuous process of consideration, discussion, and negotiation between the head
coach and the first author from plan to action. Different actions in the TB program
were then observed, evaluated, and altered based on the experiences gained during
the 1-year ice-hockey season. In addition, the aim of the intervention, definition of
the research aims, and development of theory were largely influenced by perspectives of the main coach, who served as a key informant. Subsequent to the initial
Team Building with an Ice Hockey Team 589
data collection, the data analysis was discussed among the research team until a
consensus was achieved.
The TB Intervention
The TB intervention was delivered by the first author. The TB intervention included
group goal setting, followed by individual goal setting and role clarifying, as facilitated by PP (see Figure 1.). The aim of the goal setting was to clarify the overall aims
of the team and orientation of the players. To coordinate the functioning of the team
through individual and group goal setting, the subsequent principles were followed:
(a) set difficult rather than easy or “do you best” goals, (b) set goals that are specific
and measurable, (c) set long-term outcome goals and short-term performance and
process goals, (d) set individual and group goals, and (e) involve all the members
of the team in establishing and monitoring progress toward the agreed goals (e.g.,
Burton, Naylor, & Holliday, 2001; Locke & Latham, 1985). For the purposes of
establishing and monitoring individual goal setting and role clarifying, PP was used
(Butler & Hardy, 1992). More specifically, the use of PP enabled creating a visual
display of the players’ personal perceptions of the qualities required in ice hockey,
which was then used as foundation for group discussions related to role clarifying
and goal setting. The aim of the role clarification was to specify and clarify the
distribution of work between the members of the team. Specifically, the outcome
of the role clarifying sessions, based on the use of PP, were used to facilitate the
setting of individual and team goals for the athletes.
Figure 1 — TB program in team and small group level.
590 Rovio et al.
Description of the TB Program
Goal Setting. At the beginning of the preseason, the coaches and the players,
together with the first author, discussed the common objectives of the team (see
Figure 1). First, the players and the coach were asked to write down the team’s
goals for the coming season. These goals were distant and outcome orientated.
The long-term outcome goals that emerged were winning the national championship (n = 19 responses), placement in the top three teams in the league (n = 3),
and placement in the top four teams (n = 1; see Figure 2.). As a result of the group
discussion, winning the national championship was agreed to be the common
outcome goal for the season.
The chosen outcome goal was then broken down to specific goals. As a result of
small group discussions, the players then came up with strategies that they felt were
vital in reaching their primary outcome goal. The most commonly mentioned strategies were “training hard,” “mental toughness,” and “creating a good team spirit.”
The players were asked to think about specific behaviors that would be required
for such strategies; a total of 17 final team goals were identified (see Figure 2.).
At beginning of the season, the players also set individual goals in small groups
of three to six players (labeled as “line groups,” depending on their playing positions). The individual outcome goals, which were set first, included “ensuring a
place on the team” and “succeeding in each of the junior age groups, the national
team, the national league, and high-level leagues abroad.” Following on, by using
the PP method, the players identified specific means for reaching their individual
outcome goals. The PP template was created in co-operation with the head coach
and it focused on the individual player’s technical (e.g., shot technique, stick handling), tactical (e.g., corner play, line play), and physical (e.g., strength, stamina,
and speed; see Figure 3.) skills.
Role Clarifying. Following the goal setting, at the start of the preseason in early
August, role clarifying was commenced in line groups set by the head coach. The
final roles were determined and decided upon based on the outcomes of team
Figure 2 — Team goals.
Team Building with an Ice Hockey Team 591
Figure 3 — Examples of the 31 items of the performance profiling instrument. The players
were asked to rate their skills on the ten point scale.
discussions within each line group. Each player had an influence on his own role
within the line group in which he was playing.
The first stage involved the head coach instructing the players to evaluate
their personal properties by using the PP. The instrument stimulated the players to
think about their own playing style: “What kind of player am I?” The second stage
of role clarifying concerned the task role of the players. During the ice hockey
season, there were four evaluation meetings of the common team goals (August,
November, January, and February). At these meetings, previous performance in
relation to set goals was evaluated. In addition, we tried to reevaluate the team’s
goals at every team meeting. As a result of these meetings, some of the set goals
were adjusted. During the season, three line group meetings (October, December,
and February) were also held in which players’ individual goals, and the roles and
the responsibilities of the players, were discussed. In addition, the head coach also
held video meetings with the team and individual goal setting and role-clarifying
meetings with the players, when necessary. With some players, there were more
than five meetings during the season, and the number of these meetings increased
during the season.
Data Gathering
The data were collected over the course of an entire ice hockey season, which lasted
12 months. The season commenced at the end of April. The preseason training
was very much off-ice orientated. During April-July, the team scheduled four to
five times a week, 1 hr 30 min off-ice training, and a 1-week training camp, which
included both on- and off-ice training. In August, the team commenced their ice
training, and played “friendlies” with other teams. During the competitive season
592 Rovio et al.
(September-April), the team practiced four to five times (1 hr on- and 1 hr off-ice
training) a week, and played one to two weekly ice hockey league games. In addition, the team held performance-orientated discussions after training two to three
times weekly. In total, the season (April to April) consisted of 200 training sessions
(including on- and off-ice training) and 55 games (including 15 “friendlies”), of
which they won 48, drew 1, and lost 6.
Measurements
A number of qualitative and quantitative techniques were employed during the
hockey season. Qualitative data were collected in two ways: (a) through continuous observations, telephone conversations, and meetings which were recorded in a
diary; and (b) through two video-recorded semistructured interviews with the head
coach in November and in April. Quantitative measures focused on goal achievement via the Individual and team Goal Achievement Scale (ITGAS), and group
cohesion through the completion of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ;
Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985).
Research Diary. A detailed research diary was used to collate all the team’s events
and the principal researcher’s contacts and meetings with the team. The 105-page
diary was produced by the principal researcher and it included descriptions of the
actions of the team and summaries of discussions with team members and other
researchers. Descriptions of the principal researcher’s and team members’ opinions,
feelings, emotions, assumptions, and suggestions were also added. In addition, notes
on preliminary interpretations and theoretical considerations were included. The
diary was produced during the 10-month period. It included a total of 78 telephone
conversations or meetings between the head coach and the principal researcher.
In addition, the principal researcher participated in 42 team or small-group meetings. The principal researcher was also part of the team’s summer training camp
(1 week) and was present at most of the team’s home games. Active and long-term
participation allowed for observations of the TB processes, which happened and
fluctuated over time.
Interviews. The twice-a-year, semistructured interviews (November and April)
with the head coach considered the use of methods in the TB program and associated team processes. The interviews were conducted using the principles of
the stimulated-recall interview method (Gass & Mackey, 2000), with the aim of
evaluating and reflecting on the TB methods employed during the season and the
TB material collected. Both of the interviews were video-recorded, and on average, lasted 120 min.
Goal Achievement Measures. After the initial role clarifying and goal setting,
the team identified 17 common team goals. In addition, each player identified
4–9 (M = 6.65, SD = 1.27) personal goals, which included technical, tactical, and
physical goals. To assess individual and team goal achievement, the researchers
developed a 10-point ITGAS scale in which each goal was self-evaluated by the
players on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (weak) to 10 (excellent; e.g., “On a
scale of 1-10, please evaluate your success in your personal goals set, e.g., stick
handling, shot technique, one-one-one play.”). Players completed the scale twice,
Team Building with an Ice Hockey Team 593
at the beginning of the season (early May) and at the end of the season (end of
April). The first set of data were used as a baseline to allow the observation of any
possible changes over time.
The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ). To measure the possible changes
in team cohesion over the season, the Finnish version of the GEQ (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985) was used four times over the season (early May, early
November, early February, and at the end of the March). The GEQ is an 18-item
self-report questionnaire that assesses the four manifestations of cohesion, on a
9-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree).
The GEQ subscales include individual attraction to the group-task (ATG-T), individual attraction to the group-social (ATG-S), group integration-task (GI-T), and
group integration-social (GI-S). Salminen and Luhtanen (1998) have indicated
that the Finnish translation of the GEQ possesses reasonably good factorial validity and moderate internal consistency; they reported Cronbach’s alpha values as
follows: ATG-T (.60), ATG-S (.69), GI-T (.67), and GI-S (.49). It was recognized
that in the Finnish version, the GI-S alpha value appears to be below acceptable
level; however, the measure was deemed appropriate for the purpose of this study.
As the original English version of the GEQ is the most used and tested measure of
cohesion worldwide, using the GEQ in its entirety allowed the comparability of the
results across other studies using GEQ outside of Finland. However, the results in
relation to the GI-S subscale should be interpreted with caution.
Data Analysis
Interviews and the research diary were initially analyzed by the first author by
extracting themes that described the events that occurred during the whole season
(Atkinson & Delamont, 2005). During the first phase of data analysis, the research
diary was read through several times, central issues were highlighted, and notes
were made in the margin. Next, the interviews with the coach were analyzed. First,
different themes and chronological times of their occurrence on the videotape
were marked. Second, accurate notes of the emergent themes were made. Third,
any observations surrounding the central themes were recorded. In the second
phase, all the findings were organized on a time-line in chronological order. Any
excerpts requiring clarification for meaning and context were further clarified
through concept mapping. The analysis of the data from the diary, interview, and
time-line verified the perceptions of the period spent in the field. It appeared that
players and the coach discussed and focused on TB strategies in all of the meetings
throughout the season. In the third phase, the process of analyzing and writing the
report, the entire researcher team interpreted the findings with regard to previous
theory and research. Three main themes were extracted from the data gathered
from the research diary, coach interviews, and the observations conducted: (a)
the role of PP in individual goal setting and role clarifying, (b) the benefits of the
combination of individual goal setting and role clarifying, and (c) the interactional
role of individual and group goal setting.
Quantitative follow-up measurements were used to triangulate the observations
of the TB process. Quantitative data from the goal achievement measures and the
GEQ were analyzed by a paired-samples t test.
594 Rovio et al.
Results
Qualitative Findings
The Role of PP in Individual Goal Setting and Role Clarifying. PP was used as
starting point in the TB program. Using PP allowed the athletes and the researchers to
identify an extensive and comprehensive number of technical, tactical, and physical
performance areas in need of improvement. In addition, it helped to identify different
characteristics important to team success. Studying the different characteristics that
exist in a group at an individual level was also seen as a basis for clarifying roles.
Based on the defined characteristics of individual players, the group’s roles can be
planned. For example, a strong and tall offensive player was given a prominent role
as a winger in rushes that took place near the barriers to act as a “mask” between the
players of the opposition and the goal-keeper. Another player with excellent gamereading skills was given the role as the “game maker” and a player with excellent
shot technique was assigned a role of a “forward” with emphasis on making shots
on goal. In sum, a particular line-up could be formed to have a mainly defensive
task, whereas another could be mainly offensive in nature, with each of the line-ups
having their unique characteristics and strengths. Without PP, individual goal setting
and role clarification would have been more fragmented and random:
Identifying the players’ qualities was the basis to the subsequent conversations,
which were carried out through in line groups. The completed PP instrument
was an excellent stimulus for our conversations. PP gave us information on
how a player perceives him and his own characteristics. Players’ images of
themselves gave us a possibility to start building [their] own self-efficacy.
(Interview with the head coach)
The latter stage, or the goal stage of PP, is equivalent to the method of goal
setting or, more specifically, setting performance and process goals for the individual players. The purpose of the goal setting process was to improve the players’
individual technical, tactical, and physical skills and by doing so to assist them in
achieving their individual outcome goals:
First, the players set their personal outcome goal. This was then followed by
their personal evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses, based on the results
from their completed performance profiles. This was then discussed and verified
with the coach for each player individually. Players then set three to six goals
for themselves. These goals were then evaluated for their current level, on a
scale of one to ten. The findings of their evaluation were then presented to the
rest of the line group. The coach gave feedback to each of the player, and the
other players in the line group were also given an opportunity to comment on
the goals set. (Excerpt from the research diary)
Benefits of the Combination of Individual Goal Setting and Role Clarifying. From the data it was also evident that individual goal setting and role
clarifying supported each other. The line group meeting discussions revealed that
individual player’s goals and roles were seen as improving performance, both at
the individual and team level. The discussions were often centered on the ways in
which individuals’ goals, their roles, and the team responsibilities could be achieved.
Team Building with an Ice Hockey Team 595
The focus of both individual goal setting and role clarification was on improving
performance, with goal setting approaching the issues from an individual player
perspective, and the role clarification from the team perspective:
With the players we tried to achieve a situation where an individual player could
act fully towards his personal outcome goals and occupy a role suited to him,
while also promoting the performance of the team as whole. This being the case,
advancing personal goals is also seen as better task-role performance. From the
viewpoint of the player, we sought answers to the following questions: How
can I succeed in my career in the best possible way (the viewpoint of individual
goal setting), and how can I fulfill myself in this team in the best possible way
(the viewpoint of role clarifying)? (Excerpt from the research diary)
In one of the line group meetings, a player was telling rest of the group about his
own personal goals. This was then expanded to a discussion about cooperation
within a team, and how each individual is an integral part of a team. The aim of
the conversation was to create a unified perception of how an individual player’s
strengths impact on the group as a whole, and how these individual strengths
create the overall group performance. We emphasised that performance of a
line-up was a seamless collection of individual strengths working together. It
became apparent that we succeeded, as at the end of the season, the players
were discussing player roles within line groups without any guidance from
the coach. (Excerpt from the research diary)
Role clarification is a tool to assist individuals in working toward commonly
agreed group goals. Through role clarification, the individual athlete, and his/her
ability becomes a part of the group and its goals. Successful role fulfillment allows
opportunities for the individual to develop, and through a range of task roles, the
group can work toward its set goals.
The Interactional Role of Individual and Group Goal Setting. Throughout the
season, the first researcher was continuously engaged in dialogues with the main
coach, which considered the relationship between individual and team goals.
Through group goals, the team was able to clarify their set targets and direct their
actions toward set goals. Individual goals allowed the recognition of individual
abilities and making the most of their strengths. Reaching individual goals also
increased participant motivation and enabled greater commitment to the group.
Team goals took precedence over individual goals (Widmeyer & Ducharme 1997):
I think that group and individual goals should support each other. However,
the goals of individual players should primarily support the functioning of
the group towards its common outcome goal. The individual goals should be
subordinated to the team’s tactics. They can’t disturb the performance of the
team. (Interview with the head coach and excerpt from the research diary)
The situation of the individual player appeared to be optimal, if the player was
allotted a role that gave him a chance to act fully toward his individual outcome
goal. Such a player was enabled to develop in the direction of his personal goals
or dreams. This way he could perform a role that suited him as a player and, as an
important team member, promote the performance of the whole team:
596 Rovio et al.
Nonetheless, in team sports individual goals should at the same time not only
benefit the team but also advance the career of the player. This sets demands
on the team’s tactics. Players’ individual goals should be taken into account in
the team tactics in the best possible way. In this way, the players can develop
as individuals and the team can succeed at the same time. (Interview with the
head coach and excerpt from the research diary)
Finding roles for each player was easier because the performance of the group
consisted of the task behavior of the four lines; it was possible to assign overlapping roles to the four different lines in the ice hockey team. (Excerpt from
the research diary)
It has been suggested that there should be no discrepancy between group and
individual goals (Widmeyer & Ducharme, 1997). In this study no discrepancy
emerged between group and individual goal programs because these programs
affected performance from different points of view. The existence of common team
goals conformed to the performance of the group via process goals. Group goals
created by the players were similar to norms or rules governing expected player
behavior. Two kinds of team goals were set by the players leading to the outcome
goal (see Figure 2.). First, intermediate goals included norms for behavior concerning
training and playing, for example “declaration of absences,” “preparing for training and matches,” and “giving of one’s best.” Second, the goals involved norms of
behavior concerning the creation of a more motivationally-adaptive and supportive
environment, for example “equality,” “taking others into consideration,” and “support.” Through the behavioral rules, the common “norm goals” also affected training
and playing, whereas the individual goals solely affected the game performance of
the team. Typically in the sport psychology literature, it has been suggested that
group goals should be performance-related, such as increasing the number of shots,
limiting passing errors, improving rebounds, and increasing the number of steals
(e.g., Widmeyer & Ducharme, 1997). In this study that was not the case. It was
clear that there was a need for establishing rules within the group. Working rules
guided the behavior of the group members and created an atmosphere of psychological safety, which was a starting point for an individual’s active group behavior:
I would emphasize the group goals that are related to group’s processes because
individual goals lose their meaning if there are problems in the group’s process,
such as in collaboration, interaction, decision making, or in group relationships
(for example. power/status or emotional relationships). An individual will
benefit from the group goals. (Interview with the head coach)
Today we evaluated team goals. We divided the players into four small groups.
One of the groups consisted of more dominant players who also played for the
national team, and another group consisted of the so-called “quiet” players.
The groups were discussing a topic: “Are all players equal.” By dividing the
groups by player characters, we managed to get the more dominant players to
think about how the less dominant and more quiet players interact and behave
in a group, as well as allowing the more “quiet” players to have an chance to
have a voice and behave in a group in their preferred way. The conversations
were very open and facilitated togetherness and belonging. (Excerpt from the
research diary)
Team Building with an Ice Hockey Team 597
In this study, the goal setting process took place 4 months before the start of
the playing season. Because there was so much time before the start of the season,
players might have perceived group norms as more important than competitionrelated goals in realizing the ultimate aim of winning the national championship
several months later.
Quantitative Findings
Goal Achievement Scale.
Team Goals. A total of 22 players completed the team goal scales. With regards
to the team goals, a total of 17 goals were set, and subsequently divided into two
categories: training and game goals (n = 9), for example “declaration of absences,”
and “complying with the timetables”; and goals related to ensuring motivational and
supportive environment (n = 8), for example “equality,” and “an appropriate sense
of humor; no embarrassing or mocking of others.” The mean scores (as displayed
in Table 1) revealed that the level in which the team goals were met increased
significantly over the season.
Individual Goals. A total of 20 players completed the individual goal scale. The
two goal-keepers did not complete this measure as the content of the measure was
not appropriate for their playing position. In total, the players set 133 technical
(e.g., shot technique or stick handling), tactical (e.g., corner play, line play), and
physical (e.g., strength, stamina, and speed) goals. On average, the level in which
the individual goals were met increased over the season. As the rating scale was
from 1 (weak) to 10 (excellent), it can be concluded that on average, both the team
and individual goals were rated above the midpoint (5), thus, suggesting relatively
good ability to reach the goals. Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations
for the entire sample on team and individual goal achievement.
The results from a paired t test revealed a significant difference between the
pre- and postseason scores for the individual goal achievement, t(1,19) = -6.595,
p = .000.
The Group Environment Questionnaire. A total of 22 players completed the
GEQ four times (early May, early November, early February, and at the end of the
March). The descriptive statistics were calculated to the questionnaire responses
by subscales. Table 2 displays the means and standard deviations for each of the
GEQ subscales by time of season.
Table 1 Mean and Standard Deviations for Group and Individual
Goals by Time
Time 1
Time 2
Type of Goal
n
M(SD)
M(SD)
Training and Game Group Goals
9
6.86(1.25)
8.21(1.22)
Motivation and Support Group Goals
8
6.33(1.32)
7.93(1.13)
133
5.68(1.27)
6.77(1.38)
Individual Goals (including Technical, Tactical and
Physical Goals)
598 Rovio et al.
Table 2 Mean and Standard Deviations for GEQ Subscales by Time
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Time 4
M(SD)
M(SD)
M(SD)
M(SD)
ATG-Task
7.92 (0.78)
7.33 (0.98)
7.77 (0.82)
8.03 (1.12)
GI-Task
7.05 (1.06)
6.98 (1.01)
7.18 (0.80)
7.24 (0.67)
ATG-Social
7.26 (0.94)
7.67 (1.01)
7.83 (0.90)
7.96 (1.17)
GI-Social
6.32 (1.23)
6.62 (1.61)
7.20 (0.95)
7.31 (1.32)
GEQ Subscale
ATG-Task Subscale. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted on the data. To avoid Type I error, a Greenhouse-Geisser correction was
used. The results showed no significant differences in the ATG-task scores across
the season, F(19) = 2.868, p = .53, η2 = .131. Overall, it appears that players’
individual attraction to the task remained relatively constant and high (above the
midpoint of 5) throughout the season.
GI-Task Subscale. The results from a repeated-measures ANOVA showed no
significant differences in the GI-task scores across the season, F(19) = .483, p =
.642, η2 = .025. Overall, it appears that the group integration to the task remained
relatively constant and high throughout the season.
ATG-Social Subscale. The results from the repeated-measures ANOVA revealed
a significant difference in the ATG-social scores across the season, F(19) = 3.553,
p = .036, η2 = .158. Overall, it appears that players’ social attraction to the group
increased gradually as the season progressed. Due to the gradual increase in the
overall means of ATG-social subscale, post hoc tests were not conducted.
GI-Social Subscale. The results from the repeated-measures ANOVA revealed
a significant difference in the GI-social scores across the season, F(19) = 6.298,
p = .002, η2 = .249. Overall, it appears that the group integration on a social level
increased gradually as the season progressed. Due to the gradual increase in the
overall means of GI-social subscale, post hoc tests were not conducted.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to evaluate, via action research, the effectiveness
of a season-long (12 months) TB program with a junior league ice hockey team.
A unique feature of the current study was the use of several methods in the same
TB program because TB has mainly been studied by evaluating the effect of one
single TB method on performance. Analyses revealed that performance profiling
(PP), individual and group goal setting, and role clarification interacted, and were
complimentary to each other as part of a TB program, subsequently increasing
group functioning and performance. Moreover, group norms became a vital part
of setting group goals, and group goals superseded individual goals.
The team met its goals and overall performance of the group increased.
Individual players’ feelings about their personal involvement with the group task
Team Building with an Ice Hockey Team 599
productivity and goals (ATG-Task, GI-Task) were originally at a high level and did
not change during the season. The other indicator of social cohesion (GI-Social,
ATG-Social) increased throughout the season. Specifically, individual team member’s feelings about similarity, closeness, and bonding within the team increased
throughout the season However, as the alpha level for the GI-Social subscale in
the Finnish version of the GEQ was below acceptable level, the results should be
treated with caution. The mean scores revealed that the perceived level in which
the individuals and team goals were met also increased over the season.
The findings from this study supported the sentiment that PP, individual goal
setting, and role clarifying supported each other. The first stage of PP, charting the
players’ performance, was regarded as the foundation for both role clarifying and
individual goal setting. The latter stage (i.e., the goal stage) of PP was considered
equivalent to goal setting. The individual goal setting and role clarifying were also
found to be in support of each other, as it appeared that both techniques aimed to
improve performance (individual goal setting from the individual player’s perspective and the role clarifying from the group’s perspective). Such findings are in line
with the definition by Rovio et al. (2010), supporting the notion of that TB is a
multifaceted, dynamic process that evolves throughout the season.
Similar to Widmeyer and Ducharme (1997), the findings from the current study
also concluded that team goals should take precedence over individual goals. The
findings are in agreement that individual goals have to support the function of the
group in order for the team to be able to reach common outcome goals and not to
disturb the performance of the team as a whole. However, in order for the group
goal setting to be successful, the team’s tactics should take players’ individual
goals into account as much as possible, allowing the individual player to develop
and the team to succeed.
To date, only a few studies examining the effects of setting a combination
of individual and group goals in competitive sport exists. Previous research (e.g.,
Widmeyer & Ducharme, 1997) suggests that group and individual goals can be used
in the same program, but in a complimenting and holistic manner. In this study,
any possible discrepancies between the group and individual goals was avoided by
setting (a) team goals that focus on the performance of the group, and (b) individual
goals that are aimed at improving game performance.
The players in this study highlighted the importance of developing positive
team norms regarding behavior and work commitment. They helped to achieve the
long-term outcome goals set by the team. Establishing group norms as a part of team
goal setting approach has the combined benefits of promoting group harmony and
cohesion, as well as supporting the achievement of the team’s primary task objectives. The results of the current study suggest that establishing group norms and
behavioral boundaries should be considered as an important component in a group
goal setting program. Ensuring coherent group norms can also benefit the overall
group environment. Establishing norms that nurture positive working environment
allow individual group members to be comfortable and honest in verbalizing their
opinions without fear of negative consequences. Such conditions can assist in
creating, implementing, and evaluating the effectiveness of team goals. There is a
need for rules in the group. Working rules guide the behavior of the group members and create atmosphere of psychological safety, which is a starting point for an
individual’s active group behavior. Unfortunately thus far, very little attention has
been devoted to the concept of norms as a foundation for team goal setting process.
600 Rovio et al.
One of the limitations of our study is that the ITGAS scale needs further
psychometric evaluation. In action research, as was the case in our study, quantitative measures can provide additional information about the changes that occur
in a group and can provide focus for the researcher’s observations and emerging
perspectives. However, the main source of data will undoubtedly be observations
and the researcher’s diary, especially given that quantitative measures often do
not answer the specific research questions in which the researcher is interested.
Together, quantitative and qualitative data can be complementary, especially when
using valid and reliable measures. Therefore, further development of the ITGAS is
needed, to ensure greater validity for the quantitative data collected.
In addition, a limitation of this qualitative action research and case study is that
the results are based on only one team and mainly on the perceptions of the principal
researcher and the head coach. Although we did not have a large amount of data,
we approached our research phenomena from a new perspective, and although the
number of findings is small, the authenticity of the case and the long-term process
of using TB methods help to validate them.
At the end of the long-term process, the increase in understanding achieved
lead to a new useful and workable practice. This principle of workability is one way
to validate an action research study (Heikkinen et al., 2007; Rovio et al., 2009).
In the current study, during a lengthy process, the functionality of solutions (i.e.,
using PP, goal setting, and role clarifying) was tested in practice. As the ice hockey
season in Finland is long, the researchers and the coach had the opportunity to use
a number of different approaches to TB. Success in the implementation of the TB
program was reflected in the players performing better in games, and both players
and coaches displaying greater levels of enthusiasm and overall commitment to
the team.
Findings in the current study are in support of the use of action research. By a
combination of different data gathering methods (i.e., field observations, research
diary, interviews, and quantitative measurements of cohesion and goal setting), the
study was able obtain knowledge about the process of using TB over the course of
time. A pre/post design, with only a few measurement points, would not have had
this advantage. By combining qualitative and quantitative measures, we were able
to gain insight into the actual process of TB, as well as evaluate its effectiveness.
However, because of the uniqueness of the research approach, and the results, it
would be beneficial to replicate the findings of the current study in other teams, and
with other team sports, and in other countries, to confirm the merits of the approach.
When considering the benefits of the methods employed, the findings from
the study can also be beneficial in the applied setting. Incorporating performance
profiling, goal setting, and role clarifying as part of season-long TB program can
be a useful in facilitating performance at both individual and team level, as it
appeared that using these techniques in combination produced clear benefits to the
ways in which an ice hockey team functioned and performed. It was evident that
despite adopting a different approach to the TB phenomenon, all of the methods
employed appear to complement each other. Similarly, the findings from this study
highlighted the usefulness and importance of using PP in identifying key areas of
performance, both at the individual and the team level. Through PP, the players,
coach, and the sport psychology consultant were able to gain better understanding
of the players’ current level on number of important areas of performance. Having
Team Building with an Ice Hockey Team 601
a clear visual display of these areas undoubtedly had an impact on the ways in
which the team functioned and performed toward their individual and team goals.
The study also demonstrated the need for recognizing the role of group goal setting as part of the process of defining group norms and clarifying the overall aim
and purpose of the group. Based on the findings, the team became more unified in
their approach toward the set goals, and as a result, became more productive in the
ways in they worked toward those goals. The data collected also demonstrated the
ways in which individual goals can assist in facilitating commitment and increasing
athletes’ individual motivation to the group processes. Therefore, using individual
goals within a team can help athletes, coaches, and sport psychology consultants
to identify individual strengths within a team and plan strategies to match these
individual strengths to the team’s needs. By identifying and paying attention to
individual needs within a group, greater levels of satisfaction about belonging to a
particular group can be facilitated, and thus increase individual performance and
productivity within a group. The findings from this study also demonstrated the
ways in which role clarification could be used as a tool to ensure individual goals
are complimenting the overall group goal.
In conclusion, it appeared that using a multifaceted season-long TB program
with junior ice hockey team was found to be beneficial to the team’s performance
on an individual and overall team level. The findings from this study are in support
of viewing TB as a dynamic and effective process. To gain greater insights into the
ways in which TB interventions work in the applied setting, future research should
consider using multivariable interventions with teams over a long period time.
References
Alonso, C., Kavussanu, M., Cruz, J., & Roberts, G.C. (1997). Effect of a psychological
intervention on the motivational patterns of basketball players. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 19(Suppl.), S23.
Atkinson, P., & Delamont, S. (2005). Analytic perspectives. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln
(Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 821–840). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Beer, M. (1976). The technology of organization development. In M.D. Dunette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 937–994). Chicago, IL:
Rand McNally.
Beer, M. (1980). Organization change and development: A systems view. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman.
Bloom, G.A., & Stevens, D.E. (2002). A team-building mental skills training program
with intercollegiate equestrian team. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport
Psychology, 4. www. athleticinsight.com/Vol4Iss1/Applied_Issue.htm.
Brawley, L.R., & Paskevich, D.M. (1997). Conducting team building research in the
context of sport and exercise. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 11–40.
doi:10.1080/10413209708415382
Buller, P.F. (1986). The team building-task performance relation: Some conceptual and
methodological refinements. Group and Organizational Studies, 11, 147–168.
doi:10.1177/105960118601100303
Butler, R.J., & Hardy, L. (1992). The performance profile: Theory and application. The
Sport Psychologist, 6, 253–264.
Butler, R.J., Smith, M., & Irwin, I. (1993). The performance profile in practice. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 5, 48–63. doi:10.1080/10413209308411304
602 Rovio et al.
Burton, D., Naylor, S., & Holliday, B. (2001). Goal setting in sport: Investigating the goal
effectiveness paradox. In R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, & C.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 497–528). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Carron, A.V., & Spink, K.S. (1993). Team building in an exercise setting. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 8–18.
Carron, A., Widmeyer, W., & Brawley, L. (1985). The development of an instrument to
assess cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 7, 244–266.
Crace, K.R., & Hardy, C.J. (1997). Individual values and the team building process. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 41–60. doi:10.1080/10413209708415383
D’Arripe-Longueville, F., Saury, J., Fournier, J., & Durand, M. (2001). Coach-athlete
interaction
(XXX). during elite archery competitions: an application of methodological frameworks
used in ergonomics research to sport psychology. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
13, 275–299. doi:10.1080/104132001753144419
Dunn, J.G.H., & Holt, N.L. (2003). Collegiate ice hockey players’ perceptions of the delivery
of an applied sport psychology program. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 351–368.
Dunn, J.G.H., & Holt, N.L. (2004). A qualitative investigation of a personal-disclosure
mutual-sharing team building activity. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 363–380.
Dobson, P.J. (2001). Longitudinal case research: a critical realistic perspective. Systemic
Practice and Action Research, 14, 283–296. doi:10.1023/A:1011307331290
Dyer, W.G. (1987). Team building: Issues and alternatives (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley.
Eys, M.A., Schinke, R.J., & Jeffery, S.M. (2007). Role perceptions in sport groups. In M.A.
Eys & M. Beauchamp (Eds.), Group dynamics in exercise and sport psychology: Contemporary themes (pp. 99–115). London: Routledge.
Gass, S.M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language
research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gould, D., Flett, R., & Lauer, L. (2012). The relationship between psychosocial developmental and the sports climate experienced by underserved youth. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 13, 80–88. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.07.005
Heikkinen, H.L.T., Huttunen, R., & Syrjälä, L. (2007). Action research as narrative: Five principles for validation. Educational Action Research, 15, 5–19.
doi:10.1080/09650790601150709
Holt, N.L., & Dunn, J.G.H. (2006). Guidelines for delivering personal-disclosure mutualsharing team building interventions. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 348–367.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: communicative action
and the public sphere. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 559–603). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Liebowitz, S.J., & Demeuse, K.P. (1982). The application of team building. Human Relations, 16, 1–18. doi:10.1177/001872678203500102
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1985). The application of goal setting to sports. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 7, 205–222.
Midura, D.W., & Glover, D.R. (2005). Essentials of team building: principles and practices.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Newin, J., Bloom, G.A., & Loughead, T.M. (2008). Youth ice hockey coaches’ perceptions
of a team-building intervention program. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 54–72.
Nikander, A. (2007). Tehtäväsuuntautuneen motivaatioilmaston edistäminen miesten
jalkapallojoukkueen valmennuksessa [Creating a task-oriented motivational climate
in coaching a male football team]. Doctoral Dissertation, Jyväskylä, Finland: LIKES
Research Centre for Sport and Health Sciences.
Team Building with an Ice Hockey Team 603
Pierce, B.E., & Burton, D. (1998). Scoring the perfect 10: Investigating the impact of goalsetting styles on a goal-setting program for female gymnasts. The Sport Psychologist,
12, 156–168.
Prapavessis, H., Carron, A.V., & Spink, K.S. (1996). Team building in sport. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, 269–285.
Rovio, E., Arvinen-Barrow, M., Weigand, D.A., Eskola, J., & Lintunen, T. (2010). Team
building in sport: A narrative review of the program effectiveness, current methods, and
theoretical underpinnings. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology.
http://www.athleticinsight.com/. 2(2), 147-164.
Rovio, E., Eskola, J., Gould, D., & Lintunen, T. 2009. General and unspecific goals – an
action research study of goal setting in a junior ice hockey team. Athletic Insight: The
Online Journal of Sport Psychology. http://www.athleticinsight.com/. 11(2), 21-38.
Salminen, S., & Luhtanen, P. (1998). Cohesion predicts success in junior ice hockey.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 649–650. PubMed doi:10.2466/pms.1998.87.2.649
Schein, E. (1999). Process consulting revisited. New York, NY: Addison-Wessley.
Spink, K.S., & Carron, A.V. (1993). The effects of team building on the adherence patterns
of female exercise participants. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 15, 39–49.
Stake, R.E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stevens, D.E., & Bloom, G.A. (2003). The effect of team building on cohesion. Avante, 9,
43–54.
Svyantek, D.J., Goodman, S.A., Benz, L.L., & Gard, J.A. (1999). The relationship between
organizational characteristics and team building success. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 14, 265–283. doi:10.1023/A:1022195209163
Widmeyer, N.W., & Ducharme, K. (1997). Team building through team goal setting. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 97–113. doi:10.1080/10413209708415386
Voight, M., & Callaghan, J. (2001). A team building intervention program: Application and
evaluation with two university soccer teams. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 420–431.
Yukelson, D. (1997). Principles of effective team building interventions in sport: A direct
services approach at Penn State University. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9,
73–96. doi:10.1080/10413209708415385