| Why are some teams in a particular sport better than others? Why do these teams outperform others resulting in what is commonly known as 'the golden era'? Is it because they have a larger number of better players? This is not necessarily the case why they excel. What they do have is - social capital. This is the often overlooked secret ingredient that is important in building effective, efficient teams. One can argue that these teams have individuals with great ability but looking at it closely, they have a lot more social capital which is trust, knowledge and reciprocity that makes a team resilient. |  |
Three elements that are found in these teams are:
Firstly, contribution, both on and off the pitch. In these cases each members are heard equally and share thoughts within the whole team.
Secondly, theses individuals are tuned in to each members subtle shifts in moods and demeanor and socially alert to eat others needs.
Thirdly, diversity within the group. This goes right up from the manager, coach, back room staff and to the management team.
High levels of social capital produce trust of a kind that makes conflict safe, more vigorous, and open. Creative conflict, done well, generates social capital that, in turn, makes conflict safe and constructive. (By contrast, an absence of social capital makes it impossible for people to speak and think openly — which means that they never develop the social connectedness they need from one another.)
A well performing team is like a machine where all its individual parts have to work optimally yet interdependently with other parts within the machine.
Investing in the connections among team members both increases productivity and reduces risk. In a study, (not relating to sports) the National Transportation Safety Board found that 73 percent of incidents occurred on the first day a team worked together, and 44 percent on the first flight. By contrast, flight teams that stayed together for years performed better than all the rest.
Research into teams showed that superior teams tended to be very stable; they work together for a long time, getting to know and trust one another. Switching people in and out does not make them more creative — it can be disruptive a liability. Shuffling roles within a stable team produced enough change, while preserving the value of familiarity that develops from working together over time. How often does this happen within the top football teams all over the world, with management firing coaches, buying and selling too many players to frequently resulting in disappointing performance.
Thinking of an example, it is all to common in football when a hugely gifted player who had been bought from a foreign team to a local one. Everyone has high hopes for him — but after he arrives, he founders. Disconnected from his team, deprived of social capital, his ability alone is insufficient — yet when he returns back to his native team, he is again a superstar. The individual hadn’t failed — the organization within the team had. It had failed to appreciate the degree to which ability alone isn’t productive; it needs support, safety, candor, connections and trust to thrive.
Firstly, contribution, both on and off the pitch. In these cases each members are heard equally and share thoughts within the whole team.
Secondly, theses individuals are tuned in to each members subtle shifts in moods and demeanor and socially alert to eat others needs.
Thirdly, diversity within the group. This goes right up from the manager, coach, back room staff and to the management team.
High levels of social capital produce trust of a kind that makes conflict safe, more vigorous, and open. Creative conflict, done well, generates social capital that, in turn, makes conflict safe and constructive. (By contrast, an absence of social capital makes it impossible for people to speak and think openly — which means that they never develop the social connectedness they need from one another.)
A well performing team is like a machine where all its individual parts have to work optimally yet interdependently with other parts within the machine.
Investing in the connections among team members both increases productivity and reduces risk. In a study, (not relating to sports) the National Transportation Safety Board found that 73 percent of incidents occurred on the first day a team worked together, and 44 percent on the first flight. By contrast, flight teams that stayed together for years performed better than all the rest.
Research into teams showed that superior teams tended to be very stable; they work together for a long time, getting to know and trust one another. Switching people in and out does not make them more creative — it can be disruptive a liability. Shuffling roles within a stable team produced enough change, while preserving the value of familiarity that develops from working together over time. How often does this happen within the top football teams all over the world, with management firing coaches, buying and selling too many players to frequently resulting in disappointing performance.
Thinking of an example, it is all to common in football when a hugely gifted player who had been bought from a foreign team to a local one. Everyone has high hopes for him — but after he arrives, he founders. Disconnected from his team, deprived of social capital, his ability alone is insufficient — yet when he returns back to his native team, he is again a superstar. The individual hadn’t failed — the organization within the team had. It had failed to appreciate the degree to which ability alone isn’t productive; it needs support, safety, candor, connections and trust to thrive.
RSS Feed
