Team Structure
Prior to coming to college, I played soccer for eight years. And for those eight years, my teammate mostly comprised of the same people. So over those eight years, all the players grew pretty close to each other. As for the structure of the team, I would say that it is most similar to a combination of the Dual Authority and the All-Channel Network Models. What I mean by this is, similar to the All-Channel-Network, all the players were able to freely communicate with one another. But also similar to the Dual Authority Model, the team's highest authority were the coaches while the second level of authority were the four team captains and the last level of authority were the other players on the team.
The dynamic of the team was pretty standard in my opinion for any sports team. The regular players and team captains would freely be able to communicate with each other. But there was somewhat a kind of barrier between the all the players and the coaches because they were the highest authority, however that might not have been a bad thing because it made everyone follow a central highest authority rather than multiple ones which could confuse many of the players. Also whenever there was any big problems, all the players would meet together to discuss and then the team captains would communicate that to the coaches. This way of there would only a few people going to the coaches to tell them the problems instead of many. Also it would help those players who would have never spoken up if they had to talk to the coaches themselves. I think that this let there be more free flowing ideas on the team as there was a lot of trust on my team, especially having spent many years being teammates with each other.
I believe that this structure of team organization is what made us a high function team as it is especially effective for sports team. Both the coaches and team captains were both able to perform many of the qualities that Katzenback and Smith (1933) say are what makes a team high performing. For example, with the dual authority model, the coaches were able to clearly communicate our goal which was to win games and make it to the playoffs. The coaches were also also able to develop a common commitment to working relationships by assigning specific roles on the teams and telling us what needs to be worked on.
Team captains on the other hand were able to perform a role which I believe they are the most suited for which is to hold the players on the team self accountable. The team captains were able to do this because they led by example, they held themselves accountable and in result, it made the other players hold themselves accountable. I believe that it is much better for the team captains to perform the job of self accountability than the coaches because the regular players would feel more compelled to hold themselves accountable when they see someone else who is in the same situation as them doing it.
Additionally, the team as a whole was able to achieve even more qualities that made us high-performing such as being of "manageable size" and having "the right mix of expertise." The soccer team had about 24 players on it, each having a unique skill set. We were all able to learn from each other and get better as a team together. And because we were of manageable size, we were all familiar with each other play styles which significantly helped us in our teamwork during games.
In conclusion, all the different components of a team have its role to play in making the team a high-performing team. However, all of the efforts from each component would be useless if there isn't good corporation among the components and a central goal that is to be achieved.
The dynamic of the team was pretty standard in my opinion for any sports team. The regular players and team captains would freely be able to communicate with each other. But there was somewhat a kind of barrier between the all the players and the coaches because they were the highest authority, however that might not have been a bad thing because it made everyone follow a central highest authority rather than multiple ones which could confuse many of the players. Also whenever there was any big problems, all the players would meet together to discuss and then the team captains would communicate that to the coaches. This way of there would only a few people going to the coaches to tell them the problems instead of many. Also it would help those players who would have never spoken up if they had to talk to the coaches themselves. I think that this let there be more free flowing ideas on the team as there was a lot of trust on my team, especially having spent many years being teammates with each other.
I believe that this structure of team organization is what made us a high function team as it is especially effective for sports team. Both the coaches and team captains were both able to perform many of the qualities that Katzenback and Smith (1933) say are what makes a team high performing. For example, with the dual authority model, the coaches were able to clearly communicate our goal which was to win games and make it to the playoffs. The coaches were also also able to develop a common commitment to working relationships by assigning specific roles on the teams and telling us what needs to be worked on.
Team captains on the other hand were able to perform a role which I believe they are the most suited for which is to hold the players on the team self accountable. The team captains were able to do this because they led by example, they held themselves accountable and in result, it made the other players hold themselves accountable. I believe that it is much better for the team captains to perform the job of self accountability than the coaches because the regular players would feel more compelled to hold themselves accountable when they see someone else who is in the same situation as them doing it.
Additionally, the team as a whole was able to achieve even more qualities that made us high-performing such as being of "manageable size" and having "the right mix of expertise." The soccer team had about 24 players on it, each having a unique skill set. We were all able to learn from each other and get better as a team together. And because we were of manageable size, we were all familiar with each other play styles which significantly helped us in our teamwork during games.
In conclusion, all the different components of a team have its role to play in making the team a high-performing team. However, all of the efforts from each component would be useless if there isn't good corporation among the components and a central goal that is to be achieved.
I'm going to ask some questions about things you didn't write about, but I hope is related. Was this a traveling soccer team? If so, were there significant costs (uniforms, bus to matches, other equipment, etc.)? And if that, how were those costs covered? Then, was there parental involvement in the team or were parents merely fans who attended some of the matches? in particular, were the coaches parents of any of the players?
ReplyDeleteRegarding communication, it would help me to understand if this was mainly in face to face sessions or if there were some detailed communication done online. Also, it would help to know about the time commitment - practice was how many hours a week? Likewise, how many matches did you play?
You must have enjoyed doing this, based on a revealed preference argument, but you could have been more forthcoming about why it was a good experience for you. If you were doing it for 8 years, you must have started when you were in elementary school. Did you get encouragement to try it then from a teacher? And were the other team members friends of yours outside of soccer or not?
All the above is meant as questions about context. While you wrote a competent post integrating your experience with what B&D say about teams, to really connect things this contextual information needs to be provided as well. Then the reader can better determine whether the parts really do fit or if there are some puzzles or contradictions.
I want to note one last thing about team sports below the pro level. Presumably all the teams have similar goals. Yet not all teams can be winners. And in some case teams with talented players under perform while teams with lesser players over achieve. So what success means in this setting needs to be considered. It's not immediately obvious how it should be measured.
The soccer team was for my middle school and high school and the costs were covered by the schools as well. The parents were only fans who attended the games and there were no players in which the coach was their parent.
ReplyDeleteAs for the communication, everything was mainly face to face. As for the time commitment, it was pretty intensive. During the soccer season, it would be around twenty hours a week and we played around thirty games. And during the off-season, it would be around ten hours a week.
I started soccer in elementary school because many of my friends in school convinced me to. And after playing it for a while, I really enjoyed it because I liked the team environment and also I was pretty good also.