• Fitness & Health
• Sport & Exercise Science
• Physical Education
• Strength & Conditioning
• Sports Medicine
• Sport Management
• Dance

How coaches shape value through team or squad identity

This is an excerpt from Sport Skill Acquisition by Dave J Collins & Jamie Taylor.

By Andrew Cruickshank

Supported by a long history of research, albeit less so in the context of sport teams or squads, social identity is one of the most significant factors in understanding and shaping how a group behaves. More specifically, social identity refers to the idea that individuals in a group behave relative to the characteristics of the group that they belong to (their ingroup) and, crucially, the characteristics of others (their outgroups) (Haslam 2004). In other words, a significant portion of individual behavior can be explained by the extent to which that individual positively identifies with the team or squad of which they are part, as well as the extent to which they do not identify with other teams or squads. Providing a way to reduce the complexity of social environments, social identity theory also suggests that the differentiation of “we’re like this and they’re like that” helps to promote the self-esteem of group members by placing emphasis on what “we” do differently or better (Tajfel and Turner 1979), at least as perceived (see Ashford et al. [2023] for some ways in which these shared identities can be created).

From the perspective of this chapter, the initial headline for coaches is that the value of certain approaches to developing, preparing, or performing movement can be promoted by demonstrating or selling how these approaches enable “us” to be different from or better than “them.” Indeed, this is a core principle of coaching practice in the lead-up to a team or squad performance, with coaches building game plans around movements that play to the team or squad’s identity (e.g., speed in attacking transitions) and exploit some of the weaknesses in their opponent’s identity (e.g., reliance on defensive structure), an approach that taps into the effects of stereotype boost and stereotype lift (Martiny et al. 2011; Shih, Pittinsky, and Ho 2012). Similarly, the postperformance review process will also sensibly keep this principle at the forefront, with coaches working to show how the team’s desired movements delivered success and how better commitment to or execution of desired movements would have limited or prevented their opposition’s success. A key point here is that the team or squad’s identity needs to be consistently revisited and reinforced, both explicitly and implicitly, if it is to be best consolidated (Cruickshank, Collins, and Minten 2014, 2015).

However, it is important to note that positive self-esteem and positive perceptions of an ingroup are clearly not a guarantee of being in a team or squad. More specifically, social identity theory argues that these outcomes depend on the extent to which

1. an individual incorporates the team’s identity within their own self-identity or self-concept,
2. comparison with other teams or squads is meaningful, and
3. the consequences of comparison are contestable.

In team or squad sport, comparison and contest with external teams or squads is, of course, inherent. However, it is important to note that these components also operate on an internal basis (i.e., meaningful comparison and contest within the team or squad). In this sense, the effective coach will be aware of and consciously shape competition for places as a key driver of movement behavior. Indeed, when the boundaries between groups are seen to be permeable, those belonging to perceived lower-status groups (e.g., occasional or potential starters) will typically engage in social mobility efforts to join a perceived higher-status group (e.g., regular starters).

Considering the third driver of positive self-esteem and ingroup favoritism (i.e., the integration of self-identity and group identity), the effective coach will also need to ensure that valued movements are those that the team or squad members can relate to, especially for those who exert significant influence on group dynamics. For example, consider the approach that a coach might need to adopt with a maverick athlete. To achieve this, it is important to recognize that the formation and evolution of identity is not a linear process. So it is not just a question of helping individuals to integrate team identity within their personal identity but also how individual identity can be integrated within the team’s identity. In this respect, the importance of understanding the individual comes to the fore once again. More specifically, coaches would do well to recognize and cater to the identity of the members of their team or squad—or key members of their team or squad—to develop a way of life that taps into the movements that they inherently value. This becomes particularly relevant in situations where the team or squad members will remain stable over time (e.g., if individuals with less compatible identities cannot be readily replaced by others). Coaches also would do well to consider whether the degree of athlete involvement in planning, execution, and review processes is enough to support a strong integration of individual and group identities. Indeed, if insufficient opportunities are given for athletes to have their say on what movements are valuable, the integration of team and self-identity is likely to be limited (or reliant on a particularly high level of coach understanding). This may be evidenced, for example, by the common challenge of team or squad members playing for themselves when they identify with a type of performing that is not the team or squad’s intended style of performing.

More Excerpts From Sport Skill Acquisition

---