This article was downloaded by:[MRST Consortium] On: 31 January 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 787618456] Publisher:

Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713768823

Team building through team goal setting

W. Neil Widmeyer a; Kimberly Ducharme bc a Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario b George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia c Department of Physical Education, Wilfrid Laurier Univeristy, Online Publication Date: 01 March 1997 To cite this Article: Widmeyer, W. Neil and Ducharme, Kimberly (1997) 'Team building through team goal setting', Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9:1, 97 113 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/10413209708415386 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413209708415386

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

JOURNAL OF APPLIED SPORT PSYCHOLOGY

9,97-113 (1997)

Team Building Through Team Goal Setting

W.NEIL WIDMEYER
University of Waterloo, Waterloo. Ontario

m B E R L Y DUCHARME
George Mason Universio, Fairfes Virginia

Linle is known about how team goal setting contributes to the products of the team building procas-tedm cohesion and team performance. This article outlines (a) the nature and extent of group goal setting that occurs within and outside of sport, (b) why team goal setting can enhance team cohesion and team performance, (c) the findings of research into the team goal-team cohesion and the team goal-team performance relationships. and (d) factors which modify these relationships. Based upon the research presented. it is proposed that when implementing a team goal setting program, sport psychologists should (a) establish long-term goals first, (b) establish clear paths to long-term goals, (c) involve all team memben in establishing team goals. (d) monitor team progress toward team goals, (e) reward team progress toward team goals, and (0foster collective efficacy concerning the accomplishment of team goals. The paper concludes with recommendations for future research on team goal setting.

Sport researchers are increasingly interested in explaining why individuals select different physical activities, persist in those activities and complete them with varying degrees of interest. Similarly, coaches and teachers are concerned with facilitating individual and team sporting behavior to maximize both enjoyment and performance outcomes. Both the researchers and the practitioners have identified goal setting as a technique capable of influencing motivated action. The majority of goal setting programs that have been researched and/or implemented in sport have involved the goals of individual athletes. Since the focus of this edition is teum building. this chapter will focus on team
Author Note W . Neil Widmeyer. Department of Kinesiology; Kimberly DuChanne. now at kpartment of Physical Education, Wilfrid Laurier Univeristy. Thanks is extended to M s . Donna Lang for her assistance in preparing this manuscript. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to W. Neil Widmeyer. Department of Kinesiology. University of Waterloo. Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1.

97

1041-3200/97/00974)11351 .OM)

Copyright 1597 by Association faM v u r e m n t of Applied Spon Rycholoay All righu of rcpmduclion in my form msmwd.

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

98

W I D M E E R AND DUCHARME

goal serting. Based on Lewins (1935) contention that the two major objectives of any group are group maintenance (cohesion) and group locomotion (performance), these outcomes can be viewed as the objectives of team building. Thus, determining how team goal setting relates to team building can be viewed as determining how team goal setting relates to team cohesion and team performance. This article has five specific purposes. The first objective is to introduce the reader to the nature and extent of group goal setting that takes place outside of and within sport. Secondly, we set out to show why group goal setting can enhance group performance and group cohesion. Next, we present empirical evidence in order to demonstrate the existence of these relationships. The fourth puxpose is to identify the factors which modify the group goal-group pexfomance and group goal-group cohesion relationships. Finally, we endeavour to present a team goal setting program designed to maximize team performance and team cohesion.

The Nature of Group Goals Goals have been defined in various ways ranging from performance outcomes (Garland, 1985; L a k e & Latham, 1990) to anticipatory cognitive regulators (Bandura, 1982) to affective reactions (Hyland, 1988). However, the aforementioned definitions have largely been used to describe individual goal standards. Mills (1984) differentiated group goals from individual goals by noting that group goals are shared perceptions that refer to a desirable state for the group as a unit rather than simply the sum of the personal goals of individual group members. Similarly, Johnson and Johnson (1987) identified a group goal as. a future state of affairs desired by enough members of a group to motivate the group to work towards its achievement (p. 132). Furthermore, they indicated that three aspects of group goal setting need to be addressed in order to understand how group goals CM influence group behavior. These aspects are, (a) the group goal itself, (b) the tasks the group must perform in order to achieve the goal, and (c) the processes of interaction among members that are necessary for achieving the goal. For example, a hockey teams goal may be to qualify for the end of season playoffs. The tasks that the group must perform include practising daily and adhering to an off-ice strength training program. The processes of interaction may be the division of responsibilities or roles, sharing of ideas, effective communication and constructive resolution af conflicts. All of these aspects of group goal setting are necessary to fully understand the group goal-group behavior relationship. Zander (197 1) reminds us of the complexity of relations between group and individual processes. In making this point in regards to goal setting, Zander (1971) identifies four types of goal relations at work: (a) an individual members goals for self, (b) an individual members goals for the group, (c) the groups goal, and (d) the groups goal for individual members. Coaches and sport psychologists must recognize the distinctive

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

TEAM GOAL SEITING

99

nature of these different goal relations in order to design or implement successful team building strategies through goal setting. While Mills (1984). Johnson and Johnson (1987). Zander (1971), and others have provided insights into the nature of group goals, much less has been written about the extent of group goals. We suspect that almost every type of group, from families to organizations, has group goals. In addition. we know that a major approach to leadership in organizations is referred to as management by objectives. and that a recent buzz word in organizations is a mission statement. Nevertheless, in spite of the recognized existence and importance of group goals, there is no systematic accumulation of data which describes the nature and outlines the specific number of goals held by various types of groups.

The Nature and Extent of Group Goals in Sport Given that little research has been conducted to determine the nature and extent of group goals i n nonsport settings, it is not surprising that almost no research of this type has been undertaken with athletic teams. In an attempt to rectify this deficiency, Brawley. Carron and Widmeyer (1992) examined the group goals of 187 athletes representing 13 elite athletic teams. Athletes indicated that the average number of goals their team had for practice was 1.75, whereas their average number of goals for competition was 2.65. The researchers found that (a) approximately 25% of these goals were specific and well described, (b) most goals for practice were process goals, (c) goals for competition were equally split between process and outcome goals, and (d) skill/strategy goals were more prevalent than were effort or fitness goals. Recently, Burton, Weinberg, Yukelson and Weigand (1993) surveyed 678 athletes and found that almost all of them (i.e., 96%) set goals. They tended to set more individual goals than team goals and more performance than outcome goals. While these two studies offer some very rich descriptive data concerning the nature and extent of team goals set in various sports at various levels of competition, they do not examine relationships between these team goals and either team cohesion or team performance.
Why Should Group Goals Enhance Group Pe~ormance? T o understand and explain the effect of goals on action, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms through which goals are thought to produce their results. Locke and Latham (1990) suggested that having an individual goal affects individual task performance because it leads individuals to do things that produce this performance. The three most direct goal mechanisms are primarily motivational. Once a goal has been specified and once an individual chooses to act on it, the three direct mechanismseffort, persistence, and direction-arc assumed to be brought into play more or less automatically (Locke C Latham, 1990). Individuals learn f r o m an early age that, to achieve a goal, they must exert effort, persist over time, and pay attention to what they are doing and what they want to achieve (Duda, 1986). Sometimes, however, these automatized mech-

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

100

WIDMEYER AND DUCHARME

anisms are not sufficient to attain the goal. Individuals must also engage in a process of problem solving to determine how the goal can be reached. This process involves developing suitable task strategies. Effective task strategies are conscious or deliberate action plans that constitute the fourth goal mechanism (Locke & Latham, 1990). Because of the widespread acceptance of the four mechanisms identified by Locke and Latham as the mediators of the individual goalsindividual performance relationship, many researchers have automatically assumed that the same mechanisms also mediate the group goal-group performance relationship. Weldon and Weingart (1988) proposed that six processes actually mediate the group goal effect. The first process, effort, was also proposed for individual goal setting. Weldon and Weingart (1988) saw effort as having the two components of intensity and duration. While research (Weingart, 1992; Weingart & Weldon, 1991) has sup ported the mediating effect of this variable, it has also shown that the impact of effort on performance decreases with increases in the co-ordia s k . For example, in identifying the second menation demands of the t diator, Weldon and Weingart (1988) proposed that group goal setting leads to group planning which, in turn, enhances group performance. This mediator appears very similar to Locke and Lathams (1990) mechanism of developing effective strategies. The t h i r d mediator identified was performance monitoring. The existence of group goals encourages the monitoring of group performance which, in turn,enhances motivation and thus, group performance. While not suggested by Locke and Latham, the process of monitoring could also be mediating the individual goal-individual perfonmace relationship. The fourth mediator proposed, decreased quality of performance, is believed to come into play when the groups goal is to increase the quantity of performance. Specifically, it is proposed that by decreasing the quality of group performance, the quantity of group outcomes can be increased. The fifth mediator proposed by Weldon and Weingart (1988) is extra role behavior. Extra role behaviors are defined as behaviors that facilitate the performance of others or facilitate the co-ordination of group members (p. 557). An example of extra role behavior would be the help that members give others in their group. The final mediator is morale-building communication. Weldon and Weingart (1988) suggested that group goals stimulate communication which can arouse emotion, stimulate enthusiasm, and build confidence in ones ability to meet a goal. It is believed that these processes then lead to enhanced group performance. Of the six mediators, it appears that the latter two, extra role behaviors and morale-building communication, are truly unique to the group goal-group performance relationship. While we can draw on Locke and Lathams work regarding individual goal setting and Weldon and Weingarts proposals to suggest why group goals would enhance group performance. the basis for such a relationship was advanced many years earlier by Cartwright and Zander (1968). Specifically, these authors proposed that group goals act as a steering mechanism and as a pressure device for graup members. This direction and

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

TEAM GOAL SETTING

101

pressure, in turn,should help the group achieve better performance. However, later they imply that this improved performance results more directly u r n . comes from an increased defrom enhanced group effort which, in t sire for group success. Thus, Cartwright and Zander appear to be proposing the following chain: group goal-ction and pressure for members-group desire for success-group effort-group performance.
Do Group Goals Enhance Group Performance? Surprisingly, very few studies have addressed the simple question of Do groups with goals perform better than groups without goals? Instead, most research has tested the effects of some potential moderator of the group goal-group performance relationship. For example, investigators have set out to determine if group goals, like individual goals, are more effective when they arc specific and challenging than when they are vague or do-your-best goals. Howevet, most of these investigations as well as those which have tested other moderators of the group goal-group performance relationship have included a no goals condition in the design of their experiment. In many of these studies, this latter condition produced the lowest group performance. While there have been fewer investigations of the group goal-group performance relationship than of the individual goal-individual perfori n k ,research conducted outside of sport does show that group mance l goals can improve group performance (e.g., Becker, 1978; Buller & Bell, 1986; Klein & Mulvey, 1989; Latham & Yukl, 1975; Matsui, Kakuyama & Onglatco, 1987; Ritchard. Jones, Roth. Stuebing & Ekeberg. 1988; Weingart, 1992; Weingart & Weldon. 1991; Weldon, Jehn & prodham, 1991). The effectiveness of group goals are enhanced when group goals are clear (e.g., Ishida, 1980) and difficult (e.g., Weingart, 1992). While Buller and Bell (1986) demonstrated that a group goal setting intervention was more effective than a team building technique in improving the productivity of hard rock miners, a follow up study by Buller (1988) showed that neither of these treatments were effective after fifteen months. In their examination of organizational units on an airforce base, Pritchard et al (1988) found that group goal setting increased productivity 7596 over baseline. It appears from the evidence cited here that group goals can have the same impact in group performance as individual goal setting has on individual performance. Do Team Goals Enhance Team Performance In Sport? There have been very few studies conducted in sport that have examined the effect of group goals on group performance. Lee (1988) did find that having team goals was positively related to team performance in female field hockey teams. Williams and Widmeyer (1990) found that while having a team goal was not in itself significantly related to the team performance of female intercollegiate golf teams, participation in the setting of such a goal was a predictor of team success. Recently, Anshel, Hardy, Burton, and Hichkad (1993) found that team goals reduced social

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

102

WIDMEYER AND DUCHARME

loafing among dyads performing a hand dynamometer task when performance goals were easy or moderate (i.e., 50% or 80% of maximum). Thus, not only should team goals improve team performance, but also there is some, albeit minimal, empirical evidence to demonstrate that team goals do have such an impact in sport.
Why Should Team Goal Setting Enhance Team Cohesion? Similar to its effect on team performance, team goal setting can also influence team cohesion through both direct and indirect routes. Goal setting can directly influences team cohesion by providing a team focus. A singular group focus promotes intergroup communication and facilitates overall team commitment and satisfaction, all of which have been shown t o enhance team cohesion (widmeyet, Brawley C Carron, 1985). Team goals can indirectly affect team cohesion through the mediator of increased performance. As mentioned previously, goals arc guides for action. Through group goals, the efforts of group members are planned and coordinated (Johnson C Johnson, 1987). thus, enhancing group performance. Because successful team performance contributes to i n d team cohesion, team goals influence team cohesion through their ability to increase perfonnance. This relationship is circular in that the more cohesive a group, the more its members will be motivated to achieve its goals (Johnson C Johnson, 1987). While having a team focus (goal) can enhance team cohesion, Johnson and Johnson (1987) suggested three ways in which the participation of individual team members in the setting of team goals leads to increased motivation and overall team cohesion. Group participation in goal setting produces, (a) a better matching of group goals to the motives of individual members which results in greater goal satisfaction and acceptance, (b) a better understanding of group actions needed to achieve goals, and (c) a better appreciation of the importance of individual roles and behavior required for successful group action. A final way in which participative goal setting facilitates group cohesion involves co-operation among group members (Johnson & Johnson, 1987). M o r e specifically, participating in the development of group goals solidifies co-operation among group members because individual members learn to recognize the actions required by other members and themselves for group success as well as the ways each individual must depend on the others.

Do Team Goals Enhance Team Cohesion In Sport? Widmeyet, Silva and Hardy (1992) asked 145 athletes from 13 teams to indicate how important each of 35 variables were in enhancing task and social cohesion in athletic teams. Having a cleady-stated team goal was Seen as the most important contributor to task cohesion and the second most important for social cohesion. Acceptance of the team goal was the toprated contributor to social cohesionand tied as the top contributor to task cohesion. Widmeyer and Wfiams (1991) examined female golf teams and found that having a team goal was significantly related to

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

TEAM GOAL SEITING

103

the two task measures of group cohesion and that recognizing the importance of achieving the team goal was significantly related to all four GEQ measures of cohesion. More recently, Glenday and Widmeyer (1993) found that team goal variables (clarity, acceptance, importance, commitment, value, and satisfaction) predicted a significant percent (2433) of the variance in three of the four G.E.Q. cohesion measures for intercollegiate athletes participating on interactive as well as coactive sport teams. The importance of participation in team goal setting w a s not listed by Widmeyer, Silva and Hardy (1992) as one of the potential contributors to group cohesion. However, a closely-related option involving players in t e a m decisions was seen by the athletes in their study as the fifth most important contributor to both task and social cohesion. a s Recent evidence that participative goal setting by athletic teams w related to team cohesion and certain motivational factors (perceptions of team goal iaflumce, and team goal clarity) was reported by Brawley, C m n . and Widmeyer (1993). These researchers examined these relationships at different time points during the competitive season of 13 teams involved in a variety of coactive and interactive sports (e.g., ice hockey, volleyball, basketball, swimming). They found that cohesion, group goal clarity, and group goal influence were all significantly related to the teams participative goal setting for competition. While there are only a few studies Widmeyer. Silva & Hardy, 1992; Widmeyer & Williams, 1991; and Brawley, Carron & Widmeyer, 1993) that have examined the group goal-group cohesion relationship in sport, the linlc between the variables appears rather consistent. Having a team goal and team participation in a team goal have been shown in at least three studies to enhance cohesion especially task cohesion of athletic
teams.

Techniques That M a y Enhance the Effectiveness o f Team Goals Certain factors have been shown to increase the effectiveness of goal setting in enhancing performance. These factors, which have usually been studied in conjunction with individual goals and individual krformance. have been referred to as moderating variables. Goal Specijicity and Diflculty. The hypothesis that specific, hard goals enhance performance significantly more than no goals or do-your-best goals has generated the most sport research, however. no definitive conclusions can be advanced. Weinberg and his colleagues (Garland, Weinberg, Bruya, & Jackson, 1988; Hall, Weinberg, & Jackson, 1987; Stitcher, Weinberg. 8r Jackson, 1983; Weinberg. Bruya, & Jackson, 1985) found no differences in performance between subjects given specific, difficult goals versus do-your-best goals. On the other hand, equally well-represented are investigations (Erbaugh & Bamett, 1986; Hall & Byrne, 1988: Hall, Weinberg, & Jackson, 1987; Weinberg, Bruya, Longino,& Jackson, 1988) which have found that specific, difficult goals do significantly im-

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

104

WIDMEYERANDDUCHARME

prove simple task performance (e.g., situps, pushups, jumping task, hand strength). While not always supported in the empirical research, it is generally agreed upon by practitioners that specific and realistically difficult goals will lead to enhanced performance over vague, easy, or impossible goals. Intuitively, for individual members to perform effectively within a group, they must know what the specific goals of the group arc and agree upon the appropriateness of their level of difficulty. One advantage of having a specific goal is that it helps communication among group members (Johnson & Johnson, 1987). The goal must be realistically challenging first, to motivate behavior change, and second, to provide a standard against which progress toward the goal can be evaluated. A second advantage of a specific and realistic goal is that it helps to guide the group in planning and carrying out the necessary actions (Johnson & Johnson, o express goals in specific 1987). It is crucial in the athletic environment t and realistically challenging terms to bring about performance improvements (Gould, 1993). G w l Proximity. Loch and Lathams (1985) hypothesis that using o better performance than short-term goals plus long-term goals leads t using long-term goals alone is a second area of goal setting research that has received considerable sport attention. However, despite the endorsement of proximal goals (Bandura, 1982; Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Carver & Scheiec 1982; Kirschenbaum, 1985). other sport researchers (Hall & Byme, 1988; Weinberg et al., 1985; Weinberg et al.. 1988) have been unable to detect performance differences among short-term. long-term, and short-term plus long-term goal groups involved in simple motor tasks. Various sport researchers (Carron, 1984; OBlock & Evans, 1984) have emphasized the need for short-term goals because these objectives allow athletes to focus on immediate targets and to recognize immediate performance improvements. Gould (1993) cautioned that without short-term goals, athletes may lose sight of their long-term objectives and the progression of tasks required to obtain them. He goes on to suggest that for maximum goal effectiveness, an athlete should set a long-term goal or objective as well as a series of short-term goals of increasing difficulty that lead directly to the long-term goal (Gould, 1993). P e l f o m n c e Goals versus Outcome G o a l s .One criticism of both sport and organizational research is the neglect of nonperformance measures that may be affected by goal setting. Goal setting research, with few exceptions, has focused primarily on increased performance outcome as the dependent mcasm of interest. This excludes consideration of goal setting effects on other variables, such as more consistent performance. An important distinction between quality and quantity goals was suggested by Austin and Bobko (1985). They noted that when goal setting research focused on unidimensional quantity goals, it ignored possible effectsof goal setting on quality, processsriented, individual performance accomplishments. One problem associated with outcome-dependent goals is that athletes

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

TEAM GOAL SETMNG

105

have only partial control over outcome achievement (Burton, 1989). Despite an outstanding personal performance, an athlete or team may still lose to an opponent who achieves an even better performance. An outcome-based, quantity goal of winning necessitates classification of losing as goal failure while a perfonnance-based, quality goal would ensure perceptions of degrees of goal accomplishment regardless of the opponent's performance. By emphasizing personal performance goals rather than absolute outcome goals. greater opportunities are presented to individual athletes and teams for achieving success (Gould, 1993). Team versus Individual Goals. Locke & Latham (1990) suggested that group goals enhance performance as effectively as individual goals. In addition to individual goals, group goals are necessary when attempting to change group behavior (Locke & Latham, 1990). In support of this conclusion. Zander (1971) and Johnson and Johnson (1987) stated that team goals must take precedence over individual goals. The group goals agreed upon by the group members must be relevant to the individual needs of these members. If group goals are not relevant for team members, then m o r e important individual goals may interfere with team progress. More specifically, individual goals may become hidden agendas that are unknown to other team members (Johnson & Johnson, 1987). Unknown personal goals are capable of destroying both group effectiveness and group cohesion. Group communication is required to increase both the salience of group goals and consensus among members of the group's objectives while decreasing the emphasis placed on individual desires. Feedback on Goal Progress. Goal-setting studies with individuals have shown that feedback on progress toward goal accomplishment improves subsequent performance (Erez, 1977; Lake, Shaw, S a a f i & Latham, 1981; Strang, Lawrence & Fowler, 1978). In the 1960s. it was found that feedback containing both individual and group performance information was more effective than that containing only group performance information (e.g., Zajonc, 1962; Zander & Wolfe, 1964). However, in these studies the impact of goal setting w a s not examined. Matsui et al (1987) found that the effectiveness of task feedback in group goal setting is maximized if the feedback involves both individual and group performance information. In studies conducted in work environments, individuals are strongly motivated to reach their own personal goals (e.g.. recognition, job security, salary increase, etc.). whereas reaching a group (i.e., company) objective such as greater production output often holds little value for them. This situation is very different from that which exists in sport where individual athletes continually state that personal recognitions such as batting champion or M.V.P. honours are secondary to achieving team success. Therefore, conclusions based on research in the work setting may not be applicable directly in the sport environment. Likewise, the reader should be reminded that this list of moderators and rationale for their existence has been based primarily, but not exclusively (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1982; Zander, 1971). on research ex-

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

106

WIDMEYERANDDUCHARME

amining the goals and performance of individuals. Thus, we cannot be certain that all of these factors (and not others) moderate the group goals-group performance relationship. However, as was the case with the mediating mechanisms advanced by Weldon and Weingart (1988). the moderators observed among individuals seem logical for group goal setting effects. Nevertheless, we would recommend that researchers test these moderators in sport teams and other small groups.

Establishing a Team Goal Setting Program i n Athletic Teams Principle #I: Establish tong Term Goals First Although short t e r m goals are usually more realistic and likely to have a higher rate of accomplishment, it is more likely that athletes and coaches identify the ultimate goals that they want their team to achieve. While industrial organizations typically announce threc year, five year and even ten year plans, the long term goals of an athletic team usually do not go beyond one athletic season.The reason for this could be that the athletes see their team membership, that of their teammates, and that of their opponents as very transitory and, thus, do not feel confident in setting goals for a period longer than the present season. Usually, the season long goals of an athletic team are not performance goals, but rather are expressed in terms of performance outcomes such as winning the league championship, finishing among the top ttme teams in the league or making the playoffs. While athletic teams desire such ends, they must realize that the accomplishment of such goals depends not only on their teams performance, but also the performance of their opponents. Based upon the literature cited earlier, long tern goals like short term goals should be specific and difficult (i.e., challenging) but realistic. To establish such goals, it is necessary to have knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of ones own team as well as those of opponents. Therefore, coaches often remind their players of how their team fared the previous season and what has happened to their team and to their opponents in the interim period. Thus, a high school basketball coach might say something l i e :
Well gang last year we finished third in this league with 12 wins and 6 losses. Weve only lost one player to graduation and all of our staters have returned. Also, weve picked up Johnson and Henderson as transfers and there arc some outstanding freshman trying out with the team. I cant tell you much about our opposition but we do know that the two teams that finished ahead of us last year each lost thrre staters. Mind you. of those clubs, Forest Heights recruited Wilson Thomas, one of the top freshman in the country, and they still have those two guards who led the conference in scoring last year. So what do you think? Where will we finish and how many wins arc we going to have this season?

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

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

TEAM GOAL SETTING

107

tablishment of team goals that are specific and difficult but realistic should provide a team building strategy that leads to improved team performance. Principle #2: Establish Clear Paths To The Long Term Goals The paths to long term performance outcome goals should contain (a) short term performance outcome goals, (b) short term performance goals. and (c) short term process goals. Finishing first in the league-six months and eighty games into the future-may Seem like such a distant objective that this performance outcome can lose its salience for the group. However, the season could be divided into ten segments. Then, the teams outcome goal for each eightgame segment could be to obtain 10 points of a possible 16 points (i.e.. based on two points for a win and one point for a tie). T o increase the chances of reaching outcome goals, it is necessary for teams to Set performance goals such as a hockey teams target of 15 shots on net per period or a basketball teams objective of having a team free throw shooting percentage that exceeds 80 per cent. These are usually referred to as performance goals because they depend less on the play of the opposition than do performance outcome goals. The third type of goals, process goals, are targets established for the component actions that make up a teams performance. In hockey, these might be the winning of faceoffs o r decreasing the number of two on one chances by the opposition. In basketball, process goals could be increasing the number of steals and reducing the number of turnovers. Again, it must be emphasized that the levels for these objectives must be specific and challenging but realistic. T o be specific, the goals must be expressed in quantitative terms and have a time frame associated with them. For example, one process goal of a basketball team could be to reduce the number of turnovers to five per half during their next six games. To be challenging but realistic, these standards must be based on prior performances by the team in similar situations. In determining what processes make up a performance, athletes input should be obtained. However, their responses should be augmented by the coach who has more experience and a more global perspective on what contributes to team effectiveness. Principle #3: Involve All Team Members In Establishing Team Goals A worker on the assembly line at Chrysler, General Motors or Ford is unlikely to play a role in establishing the goals of these organizations. In fact, it is unlikely that these individuals would have much of a desire to become involved in such a process. However, members of an athletic team are very interested in the collective fate of their team. and feel that they can have some impact on team outcomes. Earlier, it was noted that participation in group goal setting enhances the acceptance of group goals and, as such, enhances the chances of team success and improved team cohesion. In having athletes provide input into the establishment of team goals,

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

108

WIDMEYER AND DUCHARME

they should not be asked to do this publicly. The reason for this is because public proclamations usually are strongly influenced by peer pressure and, therefore, often result in unrealistic expectations for the group. To avoid this, the coach, after providing necessary input on the team's and their opponents' strengths and weaknesses, should ask each member to describe, privately on a piece of paper, what hdshe believes the team's goals should be in regards to the team's placement in the league standings and their number of wins. After collecting these data, the coach can then display the array of responses on the blackboard. If a great range exists, the coach can ask for explanations of extreme positions. The coach can then have athletes reconsider their targets and set new ones based on the discussion among their teammates.
Principle #4: Progress Toward Team Goals Should be Monitored

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

When Mike Keenan was appointed coach of the Chicago Black Hawks in 1988, he requested that management phase out all individual player incentive plans (e.g., bonuses for making the all-star team or scoring 100 points). In place of these individual rewards, Keenan instituted a series of team bonuses which were based on team perfomance outcomes. Specifically, every player on the team was given $200 if the team attained six points in a five game segment and another $100 if the team allowed fewer than an average of three goals against them per game during this time span. While these amounts of money were small relative to the players' salaries, most of which exceeded $200,000, nevertheless, they were effective group incentives which provided a group focus. Coaches, management, and even the players agreed that this scheme did a great deal to make individual athletes less selfish, and the entire team more unified and more successful. In amateur sport settings, where monetary rewards are not applicable, coaches and sport psychologists should endeavour to publicly praise team accomplishments.

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

TEAM GOAL SETTING

109

Principle #6: Foster Collective Eficacy Concerning Team Goal Attainment Garland (1985) in his Cognitive Mediation Theory predicted that the more confidence an individual has for achieving a specific individual goal, the better shehe will perform. Similarly, it can be proposed that the greater the collective efficacy that the team has concerning its ability to accomplish its objectives, the greater the team success. It has been only recently that collective efficacy has received attention by sport researchers. Thus, the relationship proposed here has not yet been tested extensively. Feltz, Corcoran and Lirigg (1989) did find that team efficacy had n intercollegiate ice hockey. While a positive effect on team performance i this support is minimal, nevertheless, the link makes intuitive sense, and until disproven, should be adopted. Therefore. sport psychologists and coaches arc advised to employ techniques that develop collective efficacy. Specifically. the coaches should try to ensure some group success. This can be accomplished by preparing the team well, scheduling exhibition matches against beatable opponents, and developing realistic expectations within the players concerning team outcomes. Perhaps, even more effective would be to have the coach or the sport psychologist verbally persuade the team that they had the ability and preparation to accomplish their goals.

Future Directions for Team Goal Setting

A future directions section in any manuscript usually consists of recommendations for future researchers and for practitioners. Because of the infancy of team goal setting as a construct in the psychology o f sport. it would appear that at this point in time suggestions for research are more important than are principles of application. The first recommendation is simply that more research be conducted on team goal setting in sport. At present, we have very little basic descriptive data regarding the nature and the extent of the team goal setting that takes place on athletic teams at various levels of competition in different sports. Unfortunately, there has been a stigmE attached to descriptive research implying that it is inferior to inferential studies. Anyone with such a bias should be reminded that science is a stochastic process such that we cannot have any explanation, prediction, or ultimately control of phenomena until we have a clear description of the concepts/ constructs. If we reexamine Zanders (197 1) typology of goals, we can see where we have made contributions to knowledge and where we have fallen short. For example, research has been conducted on individual members goals for themselves and for their group (i.e., team). However, a distinction between members goals for the team and the teams goal has not been made clear nor has there been any real examination of the teams goal for individual members. Thus, these areas are fertile ground for future research on team goal setting. In Zanders (1971) paper, it was pointed out that just as findings from

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

110

WIDMEYERANDDUCHARME

the industrial and laboratory research could not be automatically applied to sport research, so also results of individual goal setting do not necessarily apply to team goal setting. An obvious example of this latter point is in regards to the mediators of the team goal-team performance relationship. Here, Weldon and Weingart (1988) proposed six mechanisms for group goal effects as opposed to the four mechanisms which Lucke and Latham (1990) made popular in explaining individual goal effects. Specifically, the two group mechanisms of extra role behavior and morale-building communication should be examined as mediators of the team goal setting-team performance relationship in sport. Since team building can be conceived as developing team cohesion as well as team effectiveness, we must examine the basic team goals-team cohesion relationship to determine its strength and direction, and then make efforts to uncover the mediators and moderators of this relationship.

SUMMARY: TEAM GOAL SElTNG AND TEAM BUILDING T o date, little research has been conducted on the team goal-team building relationship. However, there is theory to suggest and some evidence to support the notian that team goal setting can enhance both team com : hesion and team effectiveness. At the present time, prescriptions for i proving the effectiveness of team goal setting arc based to a large extent on research that has identified the factors which enhance the effectiveness of individual goal setting. Therefore, a great deal more group research is needed in both laboratory and field settings to verify the effectiveness of these techniques. Optimism can be drawn from the fact that the athletes, themselves, believe that team goal setting variables are the most important factors in promoting group cohesion in athletic teams and that these factors do contribute to improving team performance.

REFERENCES
Anshel. K.M.. Hardy. C.J.. Burton. D.. & Hichkad. N.R. (1993, Oct.). 7 k effecr of goals on social loafins. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Montrcal. PQ. Austin, J. & Bobko. F! (1985). Goal setting theory: Unexplortd areas and future research needs. Joumal of Occupational Psychology, 58. 289-308. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologisr, 37. 122-147. Bandura, A. & Schunk, D.H. (1981). Cultivating competence. self-efficacy. and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Joumal o f fersonaliry and Social Psychology, 41. 586-598. Becker. LJ. (1978). Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: A field study of residential energy conservation. Journal o f Applied Psychology; 63. 428-433. Bulk F ! & Bell, C. (1986). E f f e c t s of team building and goal seting on productivity. A field expenment. Academy o f Managrmenr Journal, 23, 23-40. Buller, F!E (1988). Long Term Performance Effecu of Goal Setting and Team Building Interventions in an Underground Silver Mine. Organizational Development Joumal.
82-93.

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

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

TEAM GOAL SETTING

111

In T . Horn (Ed.),Advances in spon psychology. (pp. 267-297). Champaign. IL: Human Kinetics. Burton, D.. Weinberg. R.. Yukelson. D. Weigand. D. (1993. Oct.). Back to the basics: Surveying collegiate athletes 10 identify effective goal setting practices in sport. Paperprcsented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Montreal. PQ. Brawley. L.R.. Carron. A.V.. & Widmeyer. W.N. (1992). The nature of group goals in sport teams: A phenonemonological approach. The Sport Psychologist, 6,323-333. Brawley. L.R.. Canun. A.V., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1993). The influence of the group and its cohesiveness on perceptions of group goal-related variables. Journal of Spon and Exercise Psychology, IS. 245-260. Carron. A.V. (1984). Motivation: Implications for coaching and teaching. London, ON: s p o r t s Dynamics. Cartwight. D. & Zander. A. (1%8). Group dynamics: Research and theory. New Y o & . Ny: H a r p e r & Row. Carver. C.S. & Scheier. M.E (1982). Control theory: A uscful conceptual fhmeworic for personality. social. clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111135. Duda, J.L. (1986. June). Toward a development theory of childrens motivation in spon: 7he consideration of the variations in goals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity. Scottsdale, Az. Erbaugh. S.J. & Bamett. M.L. (1986. June). Egecrs of modelling and goal setting on the jwnping performance of primary-grade children. Paper presented at the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Scotudale. AZ. h i . M. (1977). Feedback: A necessary condition for the goal-performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology. 62, 624627. Feltz. D.. Cocoran. J. & Lirigg. C. (1989). Relationships among team confidence, sport confidence, and hockey perfonnance. Psychology of Motor Behavior and Sport 1988 Abstracts. Champaign. IL:North American Society for Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity. Garland, H. (1985). A cognitive mediation theory of task goals and human performance. Motivation and Emotion. 9, 345-367. Garland, H . .Weinberg. R., Bruya, L.. & Jackson, A. (1988). Self-efficacy and endurance performance: A longitudinal field test of cognitive mediation theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 37(4). 381-394. Glenday. L.M.. & Widmeyer, W.N. (1993. Oct.). Describing and explaining gendcr differenkes in the cohesion of athletic teams. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association For The Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Monveal. PQ. Gould, D. (1993). Goal setting for peak petfonnance (2nd ad.). (pp. 158-169). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Hall, H.K., Weinberg. R.,& Jackson, A. (1987). Effects of goal specificity. goal difficulty, and information feedback on endurance performance. Journal of Spon Psychology, 9, 43-54. Hyland. M.E. (1988). Motivational control theory: An integrative framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55. 642-65 1. Ishida. H. (1980). The effects of varied clarity of group goal and substeps upon group problem solving. Japanese Journal o f Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 371-384. Johnson. D.W. & Johnson, E F ! (1987). Joining together: Group therapy and group skills (3rd ed.). E n g l e w d Cliffs, New Jersey: Rcntice-Hall.

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

112

WIDMEYER AND DUCHARME

Kirschenbaum, D.S. (1985). Proximity and specificity of planning: A position paper Cognitive Therapy & Research, 9. 489-506. Klein, H.J. & Mulvey, P.W. (1989, August). Performance goals in group settings: An invesrigation o f group and goal processes. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC. Latham. G.P.. & Yukl, G.A. (1975). Assigned versus participative goal setting with educated and uneducated wood workers. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 60.299-302. Lee, C. (1988). The relationship between goal setting. sclf-efficacy. and female field hockey team performance. Internarional Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 147- I6 I. Lewin. K. (1935). A dynamic theory o f personality. New York McGraw-Hill. Locke. E.A. (1991). Problems with goal-setting research in sports-and their solutions. Journal o f Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8, 3 1 1-316. Locke. E.A. & Latham. G . P .(1985). The application of goal setting to sports. Journal of sport Psychology, 7, 205-222. Locke. E.A. B Latham. G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and rask motiwarion Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Locke, E.A.. Shaw. KN.. Saari. L.M.. & Latham. G.P. (1981). Goal setting and task perf o m c e 19684980. Psychological Bullering, 9 0 ,125-1 52. Matsui. T . . Kakuyama, T . . & Onglatco. M.L. (1987). Effects of goals and feedback of performance in groups. Journul o f Applied Psychology, 72, 407-415. f smull groups (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: RenMills. TM. (1984). The sociology o tice-Hall. OBlock, F.R. & Evans, EH. (1984). Goal setting as a motivational technique. In J.M. Silva & R.S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundarions o f sport. (pp. 188-196). Champaingn, L Human Kinetics. Pritchard. R.D.. Jones. S . D . .Roth, EL.. Stuebing, K.K..& Ekeberg. S.E. (1988). Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 73. 139-145. Stitcher, T., Weinberg. R., & Jackson A. (1983. May). Goal serring and its efecrs on endurance performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of TAHPERD, Corpus christi. Tx. Strang. H.R.. Lawrence, E.C.,& Fowler, P.C. (1978). Effects of assigned goal level and knowloedge of results on arithmetic computation: A laboratory study. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 63. 446-450. Weinberg. R.S. (1992). Goal setting and motor performance: A review and critique. In G . Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise. (pp. 177-197). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Weinberg. R.S., Bruya L.D., & Jackson, A. (1985). .The effects of goal proximity and goal specificity on endurance performance. Journal o f Sport Psychology. 7, 296-305. Weinberg. R.S.. Bruya, L.D.. Longino. J., & Jackson, A. (1988). Effect of goal proximity and specificity on endurance performance of primary-grade children. Journul o f Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 8 1-9 1. Weingart. L.R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 7 7 . 682-693. Weingan. L.R.. L Weldon, E. (1991). Rocesses that mediate the relationship between a group goal and group member performance. Human Performance. 4. 33-54. Weldon. E . . Jehn. K.A.. & Pradhan, P. (1991). Rocesses that mediate the relationship between a group goal and improved group performance. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61. 555-569. Wcldon, E . . & Weingart. L.R.(1988. August). A theory o f group goals and group perfor-

Downloaded By: [MRST Consortium] At: 08:55 31 January 2008

TEAM GOAL SETlWG

113

munce. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management. Ana-

heim, CA. Widmeyer, W.N. Brawley. L.R.. & Camon. A.V. (1985). The measurement of cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. London. ON.: Sports Dynamics. Widmeyer. W.N., Silva. J . M . . & Hardy, C.J. (1992 October). The narure ofgroup cohesion in sporr reams: A Phenomonological approuch. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology. Colorado Springs, CO. Widmeyer. W.N.. & Williams, J.M. (1991). Predicting cohesion in a coacting sport Small Group Research, 22. 548-570. Williams. J.M. & Widmeyer, W.N. (1990, September). The cohesion-performance outcome relationship in coacting teams. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Applied S p o r t Psychology. San Antonio. TX. Zajonc. R.B. (1962). The effects of feedback and probability o f p u p success on individual and group performance. Hunan Relations, IS, 149-161. Zander, A. (1971). Motives and gwk in gmups. New YO& Ny: Acadmic Ress. Zandcr, A., & WoIfe. D . (1964). AdministrPtive rewards and coordination among committee membm. Administrative Science Quurrerly, 9, 50-65. Manuscript submitttd: November 15. 1995 Revision received: May 3, 1996