plik

584

The Sport Psychologist, 2012, 26, 584-603
© 2012 Human Kinetics, Inc.

CASE STUDY

Rovio is with LIKES Research Center for Sport and Health Sciences, Jyväskylä, Finland. Arvinen-
Barrow 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.

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 col-
lectively 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

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 & Paskev-

ich, 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 consis-

tent 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 interper-

sonal 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 participa-

tory 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 com-

monly 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). Further-

more, 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 respon-

sibility 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 col-

lective 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 cohe-

sion 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 mutual-

sharing 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 usu-

ally 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 effective-

ness 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 process-

oriented 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 investiga-

tion, 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 play-

ers 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 perspec-

tives 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 facili-

tated 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 champion-

ship (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 strate-

gies 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 posi-

tions). 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 hand-

ling), 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

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

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.

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 addi-

tion, 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 continu-

ous 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 achieve-

ment 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 meet-

ings. 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 asso-

ciated 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 aver-

age, 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, Wid-

meyer, & 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), indi-

vidual 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 valid-

ity 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 game-

reading 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 indi-

vidual 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 Clarify-
ing.

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 over-

lapping 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 train-

ing 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 “sup-

port.” 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 psycho-

logical 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 competition-

related 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,

= .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

Type of Goal

Time 1

Time 2

M(SD)

Training and Game Group Goals

6.86(1.25)

8.21(1.22)

Motivation and Support Group Goals

6.33(1.32)

7.93(1.13)

Individual Goals (including Technical, Tactical and

Physical Goals)

133

5.68(1.27)

6.77(1.38)

598 Rovio et al.

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,

= .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,

= .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,

= .036,

= .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,

= .002,

= .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

Table 2 Mean and Standard Deviations for GEQ Subscales by Time

GEQ Subscale

Time 1

Time 2

Time 3

Time 4

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)

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 mem-

ber’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 perspec-

tive 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 objec-

tives. 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 mem-

bers 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, quanti-

tative 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 set-

ting 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.), Hand-
book 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 Psy-

chologist,

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: Con-
temporary 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 develop-

mental 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 narra-

tive: 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 mutual-

sharing 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 Rela-

tions,

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 goal-

setting 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