A leader goes outside the bounds of what a group has traditionally done to achieve the groups goal

Group Cohesion

Group cohesion is the central variable within the conceptual model by Carron and colleagues, and also the most investigated construct of groups (Carron et al., 2005). It is defined as “a dynamic process which 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“ (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213). Even though the centrality of the construct has been challenged by other researchers (for a summary, see Birrer & Seiler, 2008), the influence of cohesion on performance in sport teams has been approved in several studies and summarized in the metaanalysis of Carron et al. (2002b). Independent of the type of sport, the authors found a medium-sized effect on performance. Another metaanalysis by Castaño, Watts, & Tekleab (2013) comprising also studies outside sports even showed that the cohesion performance relationship is not influenced by any mediators; however, the effect sizes were lower than those found by Carron et al. Furthermore, a high level of group cohesion is associated with almost all other team factors (for a summary, see eg, Carron & Eys, 2012).

Motivational climate and group cohesion in youth sport groups

Group cohesion has been defined as an emergent state that “is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs” (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213). Therefore, the cohesiveness of a group reflects young athletes’ attractions to the group as well as group integration toward the task (e.g., group goals and objectives) and their social needs (e.g., intra-group relations and friendship; McLaren, Newland, Eys, & Newton, 2017). Taking this into consideration, a highly task-involving motivational climate that promotes cooperative learning should in theory foster high levels of both task and social cohesion in youth sport groups through facilitating social bonds and placing the emphasis on teamwork, cooperation, and interaction (Duda & Balaguer, 1999). On the other hand, an ego-involving climate that emphasizes the importance of superiority, rivalry, and punishment for mistakes may serve as a destructive condition for achieving optimal team cohesion (Harwood et al., 2014).

In order to explore this proposed association, a number of studies have started to examine the impact of both coach and peer-initiated motivational climates on group cohesion in youth sport groups (Eys et al., 2013; Horn et al., 2012; McLaren, Eys, & Murray, 2015; McLaren et al., 2017). Initiating this line of enquiry, Horn et al. (2012) examined the link between coach-initiated motivational climate on task and social cohesion with 351 adolescent team sport athletes (16–18 years). Findings revealed how perceptions of a coach-initiated task-involving climate were positively associated with both task and social cohesion, while an ego-involving climate was negatively related. However, it is important to note that an ego-involving motivational climate did not detract from high levels of perceived cohesion provided that such a climate was accompanied by high levels of a task-involving climate (High Task/High Ego; Horn et al., 2012).

Eys et al. (2013) further examined the link between cohesion and coach-initiated motivational climates with a sample of 997 adolescent Canadian team sport athletes (13–17 years), and tested whether the sources of athlete enjoyment moderated this proposed relationship. Bivariate and canonical correlations provided further support for the positive correlations between perceptions of a task-involving climate on task and social cohesion, while an ego-involving climate was negatively related. Although high task-involving/low ego-involving clusters represented the greatest perceptions of cohesion, consistent with previous research an ego-involving climate was only detrimental for cohesion in the absence of concurrent task-involving coaching cues. Interestingly, perceptions of a task-involving climate were positively related to perceptions of cohesion, regardless of how athletes derived sport enjoyment, although the relationship between task cohesion and mastery climates was more pronounced for individuals who were less likely to derive enjoyment through norm referenced sources of competency.

Taking into consideration both the consistency and positive nature of the relationship between coach-initiated mastery climates and group cohesion (i.e., task and social cohesion) in youth sport teams, McLaren et al. (2015) recently explored the effectiveness of a motivational climate intervention (i.e., Mastery Approach to Coaching; MAC; Smoll & Smith, 2008) with recreational youth soccer coaches on athletes’ perceptions of group cohesion across a season (e.g., start, middle, end of the season). Adopting a quasi-experimental design, 20 volunteer coaches were assigned either to the experimental condition (n = 7), attention-control condition (n = 6), or control condition (n = 6). Those in the experimental group received a 1.5 hour MAC training session as well as a copy of “Coaches Who Never Lose” (Smoll & Smith, 2008) while those in the attention-control condition received generic sport psychology training (a more individualized intervention) as well as additional reading (i.e., Sagar, Lavallee, & Spray, 2007). Findings revealed that athletes of coaches in the experimental condition (n = 57) perceived elevated perceptions of task and social cohesion across the season compared with athletes of coaches in the attention-control condition (n = 58) and the control condition (n = 44) with the exception of perceptions of task cohesion in the control group at midseason. Such findings are encouraging and suggest that relatively brief and cost-effective interventions can positively influence athlete experiences through optimizing cohesion within youth sport groups.

Beyond coach-initiated motivational climate, research has also more recently provided an initial understanding of the impact of peer-initiated motivational climates (i.e., task vs. ego-related behaviors of teammates) on team cohesion. For example, McLaren et al. (2017) examined the reciprocal relationship between peer-initiated motivational climate and group cohesion at different time points across a season (i.e., start, middle, end of the season). Hierarchical regression analyzes with data from 189 team sport athletes revealed that early season peer ego-related climates negatively predicted task cohesion near midseason, and task cohesion at early season positively predicted a task-related climate at midseason. These findings offered preliminary insight into the direction of the relationships between the two constructs in competitive youth sport groups and suggest to practitioners the importance of shaping a culture in which effort, teamwork, and overall improvement are recognized and celebrated. This may be particularly important during the early stages of group development (i.e., forming, storming), which are often characterized by social comparisons and competition for positions (Tuckman, 1965). However, it is important to note that perceptions of task- or ego-involving peer climates did not feature as antecedents or outcomes of perceived social cohesion.

Pinnacles and Paradoxes

Sociobiology identifies four great pinnacles of group cohesion across the range of evolutionary possibilities in the patterns of social living: the colonial invertebrates (corals, sponges, colonial jellyfish); the social insects (ants, bees, wasps, termites); monkeys, apes, and social mammals excluding human beings; and humankind. Against the vista afforded by these pinnacles are set two seeming paradoxes: first, that sociality exists at all, and second that as we traverse the four pinnacles in order of increasing behavioral complexity we seem to slip progressively downward in the population's social cohesion, rather than ever upward.

The members of advanced colonial invertebrates, such as the Portuguese man-of-war, show extreme task specialization and are fitted together into a single superorganism almost indistinguishable from a single well-knit multicellular organism. The insect society is far less well integrated than that of a colonial invertebrate, but is still more so than vertebrate and human societies. The individual worker insect may show distinct phenotypic and behavioral specialization related to its tasks and duties in the colony. Although far from perfectly coupled to and integrated with those of its nest mates, the behaviors issued by its comparatively modest nervous system tend to be altruistically directed to the welfare of the colony as a whole. Such holistic patterns of response also qualify social insect colonies as superorganisms, albeit less perfectly integrated than the colonial invertebrates. Vertebrates have big, flexible brains compared to social insects, and complex flexible behaviors; but their societies depart even further from an idealized pattern of total societal harmony. The individual vertebrate only marginally serves the welfare of its group. In comparison with coral polyps or ant workers, the members of a vertebrate society are self-centered, strife-ridden, and preoccupied with sexual opportunities.

Then, remarkably, this skid toward lower societal integration halts and reverses in human societies. Possessed of a brain supporting fully symbolic language, imaginative consciousness, generalized long-term memory capacities, and long-term contracts upon which elaborate forms of reciprocity can be based, we humans apparently have bucked the paradox and attained relatively high levels of cooperation, altruism, division of labor, and social integration – all without surrendering our basic mammalian heritage of personal identity and individual welfare.

What is going on?

III.A.2. Preparation

The empirical literature is clear that careful preparation leads to early group cohesion and therefore to fewer early dropouts and better eventual outcome. A systematic introduction to the nature of group therapy is indicated. This can be done verbally or preferably with the assistance of a brief handout. This might include mention of the research basis for group therapy and a brief description of how to get the most out of the experience. Some of the myths about groups may be discussed. For example the notion that it is a second-rate treatment, that people will be put on the hot seat, that talking with people who have similar problems will make everyone worse, and that the group will get out of control as sometimes portrayed in the media. Frankly discussing these issues along with any questions the patient might have will be reassuring.

There are multiple tasks for the therapist before the group commences. These include a careful description of the proposed treatment and clearly setting a time frame, including the date of the final session. This has the added advantage of uncovering problems in attendance that might preclude a patient joining this particular group. It is useful to emphasize the patient's role in defining patterns concerning issues to be addressed and in participating in the group interaction. If the group is to be process oriented the importance of working with other group members should be emphasized and the less active role of the leader in facilitating group interaction. If the group is of a structured nature, the pattern of sessions should be described as well as the role of specific homework tasks.

Cohesion

In contrast to the conflict perspective, one of the long-held presumptions in the field is that group cohesion will enhance task performance. Cohesion is typically conceived as reflecting the extent to which group members have a strong social bond or sense of attraction (Forsyth, 2006). However, it has also been seen as a multi-dimension construct that also includes task commitment and group pride (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003; Mullen & Copper, 1994). The review of the literature by Mullen and Copper (1994) suggests that the task commitment component may be most important in predicting group task performance. Teams that have strong interpersonal bonds, a strong shared commitment to the task, and pride in their group would be expected to be more motivated than teams without such features. Given the importance of motivation in creativity, team cohesion should be a strong predictor of innovation. The review by Hülsheger et al. (2009) found that indeed this is the case. Since cohesion should take some time to develop, it is not surprising that this factor has not been found to be influential in laboratory studies of group creativity.

Even though cohesion is related to team innovation, one should not expect cohesive groups to be naturally creative. To the extent that divergent thinking processes can produce conflict, they may be avoided to maintain cohesion. Cohesion was one of the key factors in groupthink (premature consensus seeking) according to Janis (1982). However, systematic studies of groupthink have not supported this assumption (Paulus, 1998). It is likely that cohesion can have either positive or negative effects. If group cohesion involves a strong task commitment to innovation, one would expect that cohesion would be related to increased creativity. If group cohesion involves a strong commitment to maintain positive relations and feelings of superiority relative to other groups (as in the some of the classic cases of groupthink), group cohesion may be related to low innovation.

Encouraging Relationships

Three subgroups emerged during the group sessions. Nine of the participants built three smaller groups, each with a group cohesion of their own. Three of the younger women developed a certain pattern of relationship during the last counseling group sessions, which can be called teasing. The “teasers” constantly mocked each other, especially in the form of comments about their overweight and eating behavior. In the physical training sessions following the group counseling, they continued this pattern, commenting on their indoor cycling and bodily appearance. The universality of their suffering was their being overweight, their low self-esteem, and the problem of finding a partner.

Three of the middle-aged females, in their 40s, built another group, the “sisters.” They all had well-established lives with marriage, jobs, and children. They did not tease each other but had a certain relationship by supporting each other in their everyday problems. One of them got divorced, on which they spent a lot of communication. Compared to the younger participants in the project, their self-esteem and quality of life was not affected by their disease, especially because they had not experienced problems with fertility. They instead talked about their motivation and issues of maintaining healthy food-related behavior. For example, they were planning to train together for a 5-km race during summer. The “sisters” were creating a different dimension of group cohesion from that of the “teasers”—their solidarity being based on their commitment to their families rather than on individual fun. As one of them said, “My duty towards my children is to stay healthy.”

A third subgroup, the “curious,” consisted of three younger and newly diagnosed patients. Their common theme was their disease. They were curious to know more about the disease and to share experiences and knowledge especially about their problems and concerns, for example, with fertility or hirsutism. Especially the youngest of them was anxious about not being able to get pregnant. At the beginning of the group counseling sessions, she had not yet told her boyfriend about PCOS, because she was ashamed about the unwanted hair growth. The “curious” worked as a research team; they shared information—for example, where to get laser therapy, how to get the financial support—and they supported each other. The “curious” were focused on the dimension of hope.

The three subgroups showed different approaches to dealing with their disease. The “teasers” had a self-ironical approach, responding to the other members in a humorous way. The irony allowed them to discuss serious themes—such as the difficulty of finding a partner—in a light and innocent way. The “curious” had a similar light way of responding but acted more as a common research team. Their approach functioned as encounter, where old and new information about the disease could be exchanged. The “sisters” in contrast were most personal and private. They considered substantial answers, trying to bear the others’ pain and maintain the desirable change of behavior.

The categories feedback, group cohesion, suffering, and corrective emotional experiences were meaningful for the analyses of the project material. Especially the feedback given by the other group members was very helpful for the development of group cohesion. Similarities in suffering supported the group climate. The group sometimes functioned as a place for confession and absolution. The experiences of success or failure influenced the change of behavior. All members of the counseling group had experiences with failed diet and were relieved by the confessions of other group members. Maintenance of physical activity was especially supported in the group who started with counseling sessions before the physical intervention.

Development of Modules and Customization to Cohort Needs

Faculty who accepted the nomination to participate in TT&B were sent an online self-assessment that measured perceptions about their personal efficacy and interpersonal awareness and their satisfaction with their academic support and career planning. Participants were also able to indicate areas of interest for skills or competencies that they would like to develop or improve. The self-assessment, administered prior to the first session, allowed for content to be somewhat customized to the needs of the cohort.

The workshop content consisted of three modules; “Self-Awareness,” “Power, Politics, and Influence,” and “Developing the Career Plan,” with two to three units per module tailored to fit the skill development needs of the cohort. The units were delivered with a variety of methods, including skill-building presentations, large- and small-group discussions, exercises, case studies, and expert panels of senior faculty. The workshops were also designed to include interaction with a variety of administrators to reinforce institutional commitment and networking.

TT&B was developed to encourage the participants to view their academic life not as a static entity, but as a protean career path (Hall, 2004). The protean career is one that is ongoing, and where all experiences (whether education, training, volunteer opportunities, and work in different settings) become important as they are called upon at different times. The skills, experiences, and knowledge gained from myriad settings work together to assist the individual to recognize strengths, capabilities, likes, and dislikes. For instance, developing a new skill while serving as a committee member might introduce the individual to a new responsibility that, in turn, becomes fulfilling and part of one’s larger career plan. Participants were supported to develop a vision of the future based on their own experiences and expectations that would go beyond the goal of achieving tenure.

Creating a space where participants can dream and imagine their ideal career arc, TT&B asked the participants to forget the word should (e.g. “I should answer this way”) and to resist suppressing their reactions in order to engage in “visioning” and self-assessment activities that allowed individuals to internalize criteria for goal setting, meaning, and self-defined success. The development plan, based on self-assessment and self-awareness, was a path crafted by the individual to facilitate increased confidence efficacy, and ultimately optimism about achieving academic milestones such as tenure.

Module 1 focused on self-assessment and individuals identifying their career and professional development needs. Modules 2 and 3 provided information and activities concerning how individuals are affected by and in their environments. Based on the feedback from evaluations in 2011–2012, the 2012–2013 iteration of TT&B included units on “Building Social Capital,” “Emotional Intelligence,” “Managing Students in the Lab,” and “Negotiating.” The 2-year evolution of the TT&B program has allowed the designers to develop a core of modules and units that can be formatted to meet the needs of each individual cohort. The pre-assessment continues to provide information as to the specific developmental issues of the cohorts, which then enables fine-tuning of existing units or the creation of new units.

Cohesion

A psychologically safe environment is likely to be one where team members have positive feelings about one another. Such positive feelings are an important component of group cohesion. Group cohesion is the extent to which group members are attracted to the group and its goals. Cohesion can consist of feelings of interpersonal liking, task commitment, and group pride. Not surprisingly these factors have been associated with enhanced performance in groups and teams. Cohesion should enhance creativity since team members feel comfortable with one another and are motivated to achieve the team goals. They should not be inhibited in sharing their unique perspectives and should work hard to integrate these perspectives to come up with a novel solution. Cohesion may take some time to develop, so positive effects may not be evident until the team has been together for a period of time. However, long-term teams that are cohesive may not necessarily be optimal for creativity. There may be pressure to maintain the positive team feelings and to act in accord with the group norms or expectations. This may inhibit the sharing of novel perspectives that are contrary to the dominant views of the team. Thus it may be important to balance team cohesion with some degree of membership turnover and active contacts with experts outside the team.

Group Interventions

While many PsyR interventions are provided one-to-one between a PsyR practitioner and an individual consumer, use of group interventions is a long-standing practice in the PsyR field. As you will learn after reading Chapter 7, most of the earliest PsyR programs were day programs that utilized formal and informal group interventions, and many of these programs still exist today. Other PsyR programs may use both one-to-one and group interventions, such as a supported education program (see Chapter 11) that offers a study skills group as part of its service menu. Other examples of group PsyR interventions include social skills training groups (mentioned earlier in this chapter); ADL skills training groups that may focus on topics such as budgeting; illness management and recovery (IMR, described in Chapter 3); support and education groups for individuals with co-occurring disorders (see Chapter 9); and multifamily psychoeducation groups (described in Chapter 14).

Group interventions provided by PsyR practitioners have some commonalities. In contrast to traditional psychotherapy groups that may focus on any issue raised by a group member, PsyR groups usually have a specific purpose and that purpose should be directly related to group members’ chosen goals. They also typically follow a structured session plan that includes an orientation to the purpose of the group, interactive exercises, and a concluding segment that allows members to summarize what they gained from the group.

In order to facilitate this type of structured educational and support group, a PsyR practitioner should have a number of knowledge and skill competencies. These include knowledge of group dynamics, strategies for developing group cohesion and group evaluation tools, and skill in group leadership and developing group session plans (United States Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association, 2007). There are many group counseling techniques that are used in both formal and informal PsyR group interventions. Some examples are drawing out quiet members, gently cutting off members who veer off the topic, and linking members through the use of dyads (Jacobs et al., 2012).

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE

Independence, Dependence, or Interdependence

Independence versus dependence has been an issue in PsyR since deinstitutionalization. Because of their disabilities, many persons who have a severe mental illness require ongoing support to reside successfully in the community. As demonstrated by the effectiveness of case management programs such as ACT (Chapter 8), without effective supports many individuals would be hospitalized more often and for longer periods of time. At the same time, efforts to achieve community integration, self-determination, and empowerment all suggest that independence is an important goal for the individual. Recovery itself is based on the individual deciding what he or she wants in life, something that cannot happen without a degree of independence. Anthony and his colleagues (2002) dealt with the issue of independence versus dependence in their formulation of PsyR principles. One principle states: “Supporting dependency can lead to an eventual increase in the client’s independent functioning” (p. 86).

On the first reading, this may seem like a contradiction. It is the same contradiction that has troubled the PsyR community for many years. On further consideration, we can see that in order for a person to gain the benefits of rehabilitation he or she must be willing to go through the process. Hence, the person might follow the lead of (i.e., be somewhat dependent on) the rehabilitation practitioner in order to achieve the eventual goal of acquiring independence.

In one way this conception of the independence versus dependence issue may be too simplistic. Who among us is truly independent? In fact, although we all achieve degrees of independence, we all have some areas of dependence. We may be dependent on a spouse or loved one or an institution such as a school or a job or anything else in our life on which we rely. At the same time, these people and institutions may be dependent on us. In fact, the issue is more correctly defined as one of interdependence, which is being simultaneously dependent on others while they are dependent on us. This balance, which is both normalizing and empowering, is often absent in the lives of people with disabilities. To complicate matters further, our degree of interdependence with elements in our environment may go through constant changes. Consider the parents who want to protect their child and help her to grow up and be self-reliant, or the couple that supports each other in their different careers while being dependent on one another. The real goal seems to be much more complicated than simply achieving independence. Instead, we must learn to be simultaneously comfortable with a degree of dependence and a degree of independence.

Introduction

Ethical leadership is vital in an organization. Leadership provides direction and it enables the organization to achieve its objectives. True leadership behavior is more than the routine maintenance activities of procuring and allocating resources, monitoring and directing followers, and building group cohesion. It assesses the followers’ needs and expectations, and it influences them to work toward realizing the leader’s vision for the benefit of the followers and the organization. The leader’s vision inspires and articulates the organization’s mission, which provides the basis for the organization’s objectives and goals, communicates the beliefs and values that influence and shape the organization’s culture and behavioral norms, and its strategies, policies, and procedures.

However, it is the leader’s ethical conduct guided by moral principles and integrity that gives legitimacy and credibility to the vision and sustains it. Without ethical leadership, the organization is a soulless structure. When the leader’s moral integrity is in doubt, then the leader’s vision, however noble, well-crafted, and articulated, is viewed with scepticism by the followers, loses its vigor, and is incapable of moving them to work toward its realization.

Ethical leadership can be said to exist when moral intent and principles inform and guide the leader’s actions in achieving the vision.