This weeks group task (jenga) was a competitive and challenging task with a strong sense of psychological influence. The 'Face' successively won this weeks task, but the major contributors towards this success were mainly as a result of luck or poor opposition decisions. In terms of attributes of success, this weeks performance was not controlable. In reflection, there were key moments of opposition tactics that ultimately contributed majorly to the teams success. Both teams had clear objectives, and the rules of the game additionally provides controllable constraints. It can therefore be presumed that only individual decision making was to be the weakness of team performance.
In terms of mental attitude i feel the partnership was supportive but very relaxed (confident) with a clear belief that winning was a controllable factor. It is important to note that due to the results of the task it is difficult to reflect on the negative impact of the belief of maintained control of the outcome. Foe example as identified by Stopforth et al. (2005) if the partnership had been subjected to a defeat then this may have had a major influence of the emotions of anger, dissapointment and shame. However as this was apparently not the case, it became evident that confidence increased and emotions of satisfaction and competence were displayed. It is also important to note that throughout the task although belief that the outcome was positively controllable there was also the knowledge that the decisions of the opposition were strongly uncontrollable.
In sport a common sense of personal stability is always portrayed with results of a match being personally reflected as a controllable outcome, leading the dissapointment. It is rarely that emotions of anger are expressed during competition however incidences where situations portrayed as stable have not been successful and feelings of anger have been felt. Personally i commonly attribute success as a personal responsibility, which in tern makes me try harder to rectify a situation or generally work harder.
In reflection i think it would be correct to suggest that attribution do influence future performance, an example of this may be where a competitor has reflected a defeat as a result of personal attributions. This would therefore influence future performance where the performer identifies a similar situations and allows emotions to be reflected upon. This impact of previous emotion may become attributed directly to a situation. This however does not reflect the results provide by Stopforth et al. (2005).
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Friday, 27 February 2009
Leadership
1) This is a difficult question to answer due to the simple fact that we have not really established a main leader as of yet. Kaylee's face has so many informative members, all having an input to each task and each providing different qualities to the group. I think at the beginning it was difficult for everyone to effectivly work together due to the fact that everyone wanted a say in the planning for a task, however i believe now the group has become stronger as all te members are now willing to keep thier input but at the same time reflect on what others have to say.
An attribute of the team that inspire's me is the enthusiasm and determination to succeed, every team member has the same goals and it allows us all to get fully interactive and support each other throughout the tasks.
2) I have only had one captain/ leader in sport. Qualities that this leader had were, enthusiasm towards the sport and all of it's members, the ability to support the team and willingness to listen to other players as a captain to allow progression of the club and himself. Experience was also very important not just in the sport or at competition but the skills obtained to be able to get a team ready with belief for a competition.
A big aspect of thier leadership approach was to teach by example, when at competition it gave the team confidence when the captain was playing well and using correct decision making. Personally i didnt enjoy being an amature at a sport so it was really helpful, when as a captain they were able to give you goals at competition, provide feedback of performance individually or as a whole team.
3) Freddy Flintoff: In history this player has been influencial to English cricket, recieving alot of critism over the past couple of years, fighting injury and yet he still wants to take on a roll which can only be described as massive pressure. Not only has he had a rewarding career as a cricketer but has also displayed the leadership skills required to be a successful captain. I think it is an inportant skill to recieve critism but to look at it in a positive way to try and improve.
Flintoff's talent lies not in his batting or bowling but in his ability to lead
England's victory over India in Bombay this week was a triumph of leadership, says Simon Barnes
ENGLAND’S victory over India in Bombay this week was a triumph of leadership. It was a triumph of a few other things, too, but England’s first win in India in more than 20 years, which left the series tied at 1-1, came down in the end to the leadership of Andrew Flintoff, the replacement for the replacement captain.
He was expected to take England to a big-hearted failure, but it turned out to a big-hearted success. He bowled well, he batted well, but above all he created an atmosphere in which every newcomer felt welcomed, every non-player felt cherished and every old sweat gave the lot. Leadership: the one cricketing talent we hadn’t seen from Flintoff before and perhaps the last one we expected.
Australians think we English make too much of the captaincy thing. They say pick the best 11 players and make one of them captain. The English tradition is to do it the other way round, as if leadership were a talent in itself. But the greatest years of Australian cricket came about under the leadership of Steve Waugh, who changed the way Test cricket is played and established Australia as the great infernal cricketer-crushing machine. If Waugh had still been captain, England would not have won the Ashes last summer.
Waugh proves that the Australian notion of captaincy is flawed. The English fascination with leadership is nothing to do with class. A great leader isn’t just the man in charge. It is not a matter of what you are. It’s about who you are.
Flintoff’s leadership against India was not a matter of tactical brilliance. Obviously, the man is no fool, but he didn’t win in Bombay by out-thinking his opposite number. He did so by the way in which the team followed. Leadership of this kind — leadership of any successful kind — is a moral quality. It is not a matter of giving orders, it is about being followed.
Sport showcases leaders and leadership. The 2003 rugby union World Cup was also a conspicuous triumph for leadership. Funnily enough, Martin Johnson, the England captain, always said that he never wanted to be leader of anything. But he had the colossal knack of inspiring in others the virtues of followship.
Again, it is not Johnson’s tactical decisions that are the crucial issue. It is a matter of setting the tone. Johnson as a leader was uncompromising, insisting on the highest standards of professionalism, but above all he expected total dedication to the cause of victory. Anything less than your all was simply a non-option.
He was the man who never took a backward step. Sir Clive Woodward, the head coach of England at the time, was once asked what Johnson said when he learnt that he was to play as a replacement. “He gave me the eyebrows look and said, ‘Fine,’ ” Woodward said. Others suggested that Johnson’s greatest talent as leader was to frighten the life out of the opposing team’s captain at the toss.
However, the point is not that Johnson led, but that people followed. If you had passed the Johnson test, you had a right to think pretty highly of yourself. Your reward was knowing that you had Johnson on your side, and having Johnson on your side was a very total sort of thing.
The England cricket captain has the most demanding job of any playing athlete in the country. Nasser Hussain was possessed by a demented ambition to end the endless years of disappointment and he took the job on with a searing fury. The notion of muddling through and making sure you keep your place for the next match was no longer possible.
The furies exhausted him eventually and he resigned at the right moment, allowing Michael Vaughan to step in and lead with a relaxed air, treating players as grown-ups. It was time for the bad cop to go, as Hussain wrote in his autobiography, and time for the good cop to come in.
Hussain’s leadership was right for the time, Vaughan’s for the time that followed. First the revolutionary firebrand, then the consolidating politician. England were lucky with both, but luckier still with the transition from one to the other. As a result, England have changed from a consistently very bad cricket team to a consistently very good cricket team. Individual talent matters — I’m not saying it doesn’t. Waugh set the tone for Australian cricket and it did rather help that he had Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne. But the leader’s essential task is to make sure that every individual gives the best he is capable of, and that has been Flintoff’s triumph in India.
No one loves being a leader more than David Beckham. The idea of being England captain seems to form the bedrock of his personality — so much so that you wonder how he will cope with life after captaincy, as he will probably have to when Sven-Göran Eriksson leaves the England team after the World Cup this summer.
Two games showed Beckham’s leadership at its very best. There was the World Cup qualifier against Greece at Old Trafford in 2001, when England were losing. An almost unhinged performance from Beckham rescued the situation and he scored the late equaliser that meant that England would play in the World Cup finals.
Once there, Beckham had his match of personal redemption against Argentina, which England won 1-0 thanks to Beckham’s penalty. Beckham wants to be the one everyone looks up to, as well as the one everyone looks at. He insisted on taking all the penalties, which ended up as a personal and corporate disaster. The one that really mattered was in the penalty shoot-out against Portugal in the quarter-finals of the European Championship in 2004. Beckham took the first one, being The Leader. And missed. Learning in the process the sad truth that being called captain doesn’t always make you a leader.
But Beckham will be leading England in the World Cup finals in Germany, metatarsals permitting, and we will see how far his — not inconsiderable — talents for leadership take England. He leads by example. That’s what people say about captains, generally meaning that he doesn’t have a clue about tactics. But it is a more complicated businesses than that. In India, Flintoff certainly set a good example, but it wasn’t bowling fast and batting patiently that made people want to follow him.
Rather, it was the fact that people believed in him. Each successful leader has that quality, each in his own way. It is not just a quality in the leader; more importantly, it is a quality that resonates among the led. It comes in as many forms as there are leaders — in the monobrowed taciturnity of Johnson, the messianic nature of Waugh, the intensity of Hussain, the staginess of Beckham, the relaxed nature of Vaughan, the generosity of Flintoff.
But the quintessence of the talent is unanalysable; it is just something that followers recognise and they do that only because they discover they are (a) following and (b) playing better than they thought they could. Leadership — you can work out what it means by watching the followers.
An attribute of the team that inspire's me is the enthusiasm and determination to succeed, every team member has the same goals and it allows us all to get fully interactive and support each other throughout the tasks.
2) I have only had one captain/ leader in sport. Qualities that this leader had were, enthusiasm towards the sport and all of it's members, the ability to support the team and willingness to listen to other players as a captain to allow progression of the club and himself. Experience was also very important not just in the sport or at competition but the skills obtained to be able to get a team ready with belief for a competition.
A big aspect of thier leadership approach was to teach by example, when at competition it gave the team confidence when the captain was playing well and using correct decision making. Personally i didnt enjoy being an amature at a sport so it was really helpful, when as a captain they were able to give you goals at competition, provide feedback of performance individually or as a whole team.
3) Freddy Flintoff: In history this player has been influencial to English cricket, recieving alot of critism over the past couple of years, fighting injury and yet he still wants to take on a roll which can only be described as massive pressure. Not only has he had a rewarding career as a cricketer but has also displayed the leadership skills required to be a successful captain. I think it is an inportant skill to recieve critism but to look at it in a positive way to try and improve.
Flintoff's talent lies not in his batting or bowling but in his ability to lead
England's victory over India in Bombay this week was a triumph of leadership, says Simon Barnes
ENGLAND’S victory over India in Bombay this week was a triumph of leadership. It was a triumph of a few other things, too, but England’s first win in India in more than 20 years, which left the series tied at 1-1, came down in the end to the leadership of Andrew Flintoff, the replacement for the replacement captain.
He was expected to take England to a big-hearted failure, but it turned out to a big-hearted success. He bowled well, he batted well, but above all he created an atmosphere in which every newcomer felt welcomed, every non-player felt cherished and every old sweat gave the lot. Leadership: the one cricketing talent we hadn’t seen from Flintoff before and perhaps the last one we expected.
Australians think we English make too much of the captaincy thing. They say pick the best 11 players and make one of them captain. The English tradition is to do it the other way round, as if leadership were a talent in itself. But the greatest years of Australian cricket came about under the leadership of Steve Waugh, who changed the way Test cricket is played and established Australia as the great infernal cricketer-crushing machine. If Waugh had still been captain, England would not have won the Ashes last summer.
Waugh proves that the Australian notion of captaincy is flawed. The English fascination with leadership is nothing to do with class. A great leader isn’t just the man in charge. It is not a matter of what you are. It’s about who you are.
Flintoff’s leadership against India was not a matter of tactical brilliance. Obviously, the man is no fool, but he didn’t win in Bombay by out-thinking his opposite number. He did so by the way in which the team followed. Leadership of this kind — leadership of any successful kind — is a moral quality. It is not a matter of giving orders, it is about being followed.
Sport showcases leaders and leadership. The 2003 rugby union World Cup was also a conspicuous triumph for leadership. Funnily enough, Martin Johnson, the England captain, always said that he never wanted to be leader of anything. But he had the colossal knack of inspiring in others the virtues of followship.
Again, it is not Johnson’s tactical decisions that are the crucial issue. It is a matter of setting the tone. Johnson as a leader was uncompromising, insisting on the highest standards of professionalism, but above all he expected total dedication to the cause of victory. Anything less than your all was simply a non-option.
He was the man who never took a backward step. Sir Clive Woodward, the head coach of England at the time, was once asked what Johnson said when he learnt that he was to play as a replacement. “He gave me the eyebrows look and said, ‘Fine,’ ” Woodward said. Others suggested that Johnson’s greatest talent as leader was to frighten the life out of the opposing team’s captain at the toss.
However, the point is not that Johnson led, but that people followed. If you had passed the Johnson test, you had a right to think pretty highly of yourself. Your reward was knowing that you had Johnson on your side, and having Johnson on your side was a very total sort of thing.
The England cricket captain has the most demanding job of any playing athlete in the country. Nasser Hussain was possessed by a demented ambition to end the endless years of disappointment and he took the job on with a searing fury. The notion of muddling through and making sure you keep your place for the next match was no longer possible.
The furies exhausted him eventually and he resigned at the right moment, allowing Michael Vaughan to step in and lead with a relaxed air, treating players as grown-ups. It was time for the bad cop to go, as Hussain wrote in his autobiography, and time for the good cop to come in.
Hussain’s leadership was right for the time, Vaughan’s for the time that followed. First the revolutionary firebrand, then the consolidating politician. England were lucky with both, but luckier still with the transition from one to the other. As a result, England have changed from a consistently very bad cricket team to a consistently very good cricket team. Individual talent matters — I’m not saying it doesn’t. Waugh set the tone for Australian cricket and it did rather help that he had Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne. But the leader’s essential task is to make sure that every individual gives the best he is capable of, and that has been Flintoff’s triumph in India.
No one loves being a leader more than David Beckham. The idea of being England captain seems to form the bedrock of his personality — so much so that you wonder how he will cope with life after captaincy, as he will probably have to when Sven-Göran Eriksson leaves the England team after the World Cup this summer.
Two games showed Beckham’s leadership at its very best. There was the World Cup qualifier against Greece at Old Trafford in 2001, when England were losing. An almost unhinged performance from Beckham rescued the situation and he scored the late equaliser that meant that England would play in the World Cup finals.
Once there, Beckham had his match of personal redemption against Argentina, which England won 1-0 thanks to Beckham’s penalty. Beckham wants to be the one everyone looks up to, as well as the one everyone looks at. He insisted on taking all the penalties, which ended up as a personal and corporate disaster. The one that really mattered was in the penalty shoot-out against Portugal in the quarter-finals of the European Championship in 2004. Beckham took the first one, being The Leader. And missed. Learning in the process the sad truth that being called captain doesn’t always make you a leader.
But Beckham will be leading England in the World Cup finals in Germany, metatarsals permitting, and we will see how far his — not inconsiderable — talents for leadership take England. He leads by example. That’s what people say about captains, generally meaning that he doesn’t have a clue about tactics. But it is a more complicated businesses than that. In India, Flintoff certainly set a good example, but it wasn’t bowling fast and batting patiently that made people want to follow him.
Rather, it was the fact that people believed in him. Each successful leader has that quality, each in his own way. It is not just a quality in the leader; more importantly, it is a quality that resonates among the led. It comes in as many forms as there are leaders — in the monobrowed taciturnity of Johnson, the messianic nature of Waugh, the intensity of Hussain, the staginess of Beckham, the relaxed nature of Vaughan, the generosity of Flintoff.
But the quintessence of the talent is unanalysable; it is just something that followers recognise and they do that only because they discover they are (a) following and (b) playing better than they thought they could. Leadership — you can work out what it means by watching the followers.
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Marooned In Finland
1- A study conducted by Wilkinson & Pollard (2006) reported that a significant impact on performance was recognised when a team moved to a new stadium. The study suggested that a significant decrease in performance would occur for the first year of participation within a new stadium. Additionally Pollard (2002) identified a major contribution towards home advantage being a familiarity with the local playing facility.
In Pollards (2002) study, records from thirty-seven North American Professional baseball, basketball, and hockey teams that were reported to have moved within the same metropoletan area between the years of 1987- 2001 were analyzed. These results showed significant evidence to suggest that reduction in home advantage within the first year of moving occured. The present study by Wilkinson & Pollard (2006) used a sample size of 40 teams from (MLB), (NHL), and (NBA) that had moved to a new stadium during a period from October 1987 to September 2002.
Procedure- home advantage was calculated as a % of home wins to total season wins. To allow for ties and overtime losses in hockey, home advantage for these teams were calculated as the % of total points earned in home games in comparison to season earned points. A total of a 3-year period was provided for each team; last year of old stadium results and two years for the new stadium. A clear drop in home advantage for the first year in a new stadium became apparent (p= .005). Results also suggested a vast increase in home advantage in the second year at a new stadium.
Study's conducted by Quinn, Bursik, Borick & Raethz; Watson & Krantz (2003) however do not support the evidence suggested by Wilkinson & Pollard (2006) concluding results demonstrating significant increases in home advantage taking place when moving to a new stadium.
Overall literature suggests that significant influences on home advantage and performance currently occur.
2- Kaylee's Face, initially when calculating the best strategy to adopt there were several ideas which the team were happy to trial and provide feedback efficiently. It was very apparent that certain team members undertook specific roles i.e; Big Chriss being a camel for a certain Mr Gunbie (lightest of the group). Generally the team were happy to keep specific roles and use strengths of team members at correct times. I belive it was fortunate to have a member like Chris in the banter bus, however without him the situation would certainly make the team be forced to adopt a new strategy.
3- Certainly a key component of the team's success was communication and feedback with the addition of praise and support for other team members. This encourage motivation within the banter bus and overall influenced our impressive performance. With the little allocated time provide to practice, this combination of effective communication of ideas and feedback was critical.
In Pollards (2002) study, records from thirty-seven North American Professional baseball, basketball, and hockey teams that were reported to have moved within the same metropoletan area between the years of 1987- 2001 were analyzed. These results showed significant evidence to suggest that reduction in home advantage within the first year of moving occured. The present study by Wilkinson & Pollard (2006) used a sample size of 40 teams from (MLB), (NHL), and (NBA) that had moved to a new stadium during a period from October 1987 to September 2002.
Procedure- home advantage was calculated as a % of home wins to total season wins. To allow for ties and overtime losses in hockey, home advantage for these teams were calculated as the % of total points earned in home games in comparison to season earned points. A total of a 3-year period was provided for each team; last year of old stadium results and two years for the new stadium. A clear drop in home advantage for the first year in a new stadium became apparent (p= .005). Results also suggested a vast increase in home advantage in the second year at a new stadium.
Study's conducted by Quinn, Bursik, Borick & Raethz; Watson & Krantz (2003) however do not support the evidence suggested by Wilkinson & Pollard (2006) concluding results demonstrating significant increases in home advantage taking place when moving to a new stadium.
Overall literature suggests that significant influences on home advantage and performance currently occur.
2- Kaylee's Face, initially when calculating the best strategy to adopt there were several ideas which the team were happy to trial and provide feedback efficiently. It was very apparent that certain team members undertook specific roles i.e; Big Chriss being a camel for a certain Mr Gunbie (lightest of the group). Generally the team were happy to keep specific roles and use strengths of team members at correct times. I belive it was fortunate to have a member like Chris in the banter bus, however without him the situation would certainly make the team be forced to adopt a new strategy.
3- Certainly a key component of the team's success was communication and feedback with the addition of praise and support for other team members. This encourage motivation within the banter bus and overall influenced our impressive performance. With the little allocated time provide to practice, this combination of effective communication of ideas and feedback was critical.
Thursday, 5 February 2009
WEEK 2 Dynamics MOON LANDING TASK
1. Kaylee's face after a slightly dissapointing first week trial, managed to perform both well in the task and as a team. In reference to Steiner's model the potential in our group was limited, all of the personalities in the group were extravert, loud and controlling which should in theory lead to little teamwork and more confrontation. The process losses did indeed reflect this by proving that without reflectors and people willing to listen progress was slow with arguments occuring regularly. However team work managed to prevail with many persons in the group eventually realising that with such a short time limit, wasting precious time would prove fatal.
2. I believe the group of 7 which we had in week two could have been too big with such a small task. Ideally a group size of 2/3 would be ideal for this task; 2 handling and producing the product and one reflecting on the progress and providing instruction. IN addition if the task was larger ie. having to launch the eggs into the air aswell as save them the group could then effectively be split into a joined team working on seperate parts of the design.
Carron's model displays for Kaylee's face that the member attributes are very similar and repeated, with a group structure that is very unbalanced in terms of differing personalities. With a group enviroment that was providing pressure on the team the cohesion was at first limited and only when members were able to start listening to each others ideas and resolve issues did effect communication/ cohesion begin.
Steiners model displays the potential group productivity to be quite low, with all the members being so similar however with process losses of certain members turning very reflective due to competition within the group others members were allowed the chance to voice ideas. Actual group productivity should have been lower than what the outcome percieved.
3. Squad size produces advantages and disadvantages for all team. Using example b Aston villa with a known decreased player squad size and reduced value of players would most likely perform better with a smaller more cohesive team than Man Utd. Man Utd with high profile players and large squad size do have plenty of talent in case of player injuries etc. however playing time that members may recieve could be much less and therefore not providing players with sufficient time to bond and train/ play as a team rather than just training.
2. I believe the group of 7 which we had in week two could have been too big with such a small task. Ideally a group size of 2/3 would be ideal for this task; 2 handling and producing the product and one reflecting on the progress and providing instruction. IN addition if the task was larger ie. having to launch the eggs into the air aswell as save them the group could then effectively be split into a joined team working on seperate parts of the design.
Carron's model displays for Kaylee's face that the member attributes are very similar and repeated, with a group structure that is very unbalanced in terms of differing personalities. With a group enviroment that was providing pressure on the team the cohesion was at first limited and only when members were able to start listening to each others ideas and resolve issues did effect communication/ cohesion begin.
Steiners model displays the potential group productivity to be quite low, with all the members being so similar however with process losses of certain members turning very reflective due to competition within the group others members were allowed the chance to voice ideas. Actual group productivity should have been lower than what the outcome percieved.
3. Squad size produces advantages and disadvantages for all team. Using example b Aston villa with a known decreased player squad size and reduced value of players would most likely perform better with a smaller more cohesive team than Man Utd. Man Utd with high profile players and large squad size do have plenty of talent in case of player injuries etc. however playing time that members may recieve could be much less and therefore not providing players with sufficient time to bond and train/ play as a team rather than just training.
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Frisbee Task 1
Future Career
Looking to complete my degree in Sports Coaching Science and then continue at Chichester to complete a PGCE in PE at secondary level, i believe this module may provide interesting content on how to engage and manage different groups of people. I think it is a very important skill, the ability to interact with others.
S & W's
I think generally we have the best team by far, actually it isnt even worth arguing. I think there is an important mix of amazing characters who have all decided to jump on the banter bus aka. Kaylee's Face! strengths = everything: skillful, funny, banter, knowledgable, soduku, cosswords, daily star!! Weaknesses = none i think are victory, not points but moral, proved how difficult we are to beat.
Players
I think it is important to realise that although a team of players who are concidered the best at a sport or event may not produce the best performance however luckily Kaylee's face dont have any of the best players just the most whitty & skillfully gifted players in the world!
Looking to complete my degree in Sports Coaching Science and then continue at Chichester to complete a PGCE in PE at secondary level, i believe this module may provide interesting content on how to engage and manage different groups of people. I think it is a very important skill, the ability to interact with others.
S & W's
I think generally we have the best team by far, actually it isnt even worth arguing. I think there is an important mix of amazing characters who have all decided to jump on the banter bus aka. Kaylee's Face! strengths = everything: skillful, funny, banter, knowledgable, soduku, cosswords, daily star!! Weaknesses = none i think are victory, not points but moral, proved how difficult we are to beat.
Players
I think it is important to realise that although a team of players who are concidered the best at a sport or event may not produce the best performance however luckily Kaylee's face dont have any of the best players just the most whitty & skillfully gifted players in the world!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
