A641.5.3.RB - ICT at the Team Level

2004 was a crushing disappointment for the U.S. men’s Olympic basketball team.  The “Dream Team” ended up going 5-3 that year and taking home the bronze medal.  It was the first, and so far the only time, that the U.S. men’s basketball team did not win the gold medal.  The team’s roster was filled with names of superstars such as Allen Iverson, Dwayne Wade, Carmelo Anthony, LeBron James, and Tim Duncan.  Despite the all-star roster, the U.S. team suffered their worst defeat in history; a 19 point loss against Puerto Rico (Maisonet, 2017).

In contrast, the same year the U.S. women’s soccer team brought home the gold medal.  The team won five, lost none, and one match ended in a draw.  The 2004 women’s team was led by a veteran coach, April Heinrichs.  Heinrichs had been part of the team, either as a player or on the coaching staff, since 1986.  Additionally, several of the team members were veteran players, having competed together in previous Olympic games and other international tournaments.

Perhaps these two U.S. teams, the 2004 men’s Olympic basketball team, and the 2004 women’s Olympic soccer team, can provide a case study into the dynamics of team development.  Akrivou, Boyatzis, and McLeod (2006) suggested that the nature and process of group development is based on certain propositions.  The first proposition is that “Desired change in groups can be intentional and will be more effective and efficient when it is conscious and intentional” (p. 695).  The 2004 U.S. women’s soccer team had several veteran players.  They had spent time together practicing and working to improve.  In contrast, the U.S. men’s basketball team was rostered by young players who did not have much time together to practice.  The average age was just 23.5 years old.  Just weeks before the start of the Olympic games changes were made to the roster (Maisonet, 2017).  It is challenging to instill a vision and understand the need for intentional change when the team is essentially thrown together at the last minute. 

The second proposition on team development is “Positive emotion creates intrinsic motivation for intentional group development” (Akrivou et al, 2006, p. 696).  Due to the last minute changes in the roster for the men’s team and other issues there were hard feelings between many of the players and the coaching staff.  One of the players complained, “He’s trying to make us play the ‘right way.’  He’s not letting us play.  We just need to play” (Maisonet, 2017, para. 23).  Tensions between the coaching staff and the players prevented the development of positive emotion on the team.  “That tension meant a realignment of priorities, and what was usually deemed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity now felt like something less cool and not so worth the time and investment” (Maisonet, 2017, para. 17).

The women’s soccer team had its own struggles between the coach and the players.  Many of the players did not like Heinrichs’ coaching style.  One player suggested that her style was unprofessional and her tactics were stifling (Halloran, 2013).  However, it appears that the group had unified enough as a team to overcome the tension between the players and the coach and they had enough positive emotion to develop as a team.

The third proposition states that “when a shared ideal, or group vision emerges, intentional change theory predicts sustainable, group development” (Akrivou et al, 2006, p. 696).  The men’s basketball team struggled to create a shared vision.  “The stark reality of Team USA was that throwing a random assortment of basketball players with a "name" head coach into a situation they were wholly unprepared for didn't work” (Maisonet, 2017, para. 28).  Additionally, the younger members of the team seemed more interested in making a name for themselves than creating a shared vision.  They failed to establish a team identity, instead maintaining individual identity.  Akrivou et al stated “The motivational force for salient and sustainable change comes from the group members desires to evolve in a desired direction of the group level of the Ideal Self” (2006, p. 697).  The 2004 men’s team failed to unify behind a shared vision.

The women’s soccer team, on the other hand, had played together for a number of years and had been close to tasting victory.  In the 2003 World Cup the team finished third.  This likely calcified their shared vision of a gold medal in the 2004 Olympic games.

The fourth proposition of group development is that “Intentional group development is a recursive iteration through the five phases of intentional change theory, but at progressively greater depth and positive impact on the group” (2006, pp. 697-8).  Groups progress and develop naturally as they work together and go through the five stages of intentional change.  Essentially this means that practice makes perfect.  Akrivou et al stated that “multiple iterations lead the group to increasing group consciousness, or self-awareness, increased salience, or intensity, and increased cohesion, or holistic and integrated sense of the group’s core identity, vision and purpose” (2006, p. 698).  The men’s basketball team failed to achieve group cohesion.  They likely had not spent enough time on the court playing and practicing together to become a team.  Additionally, it seems that individual egos played a role in the failure (Maisonet, 2017).  In contrast, the women’s soccer team had been playing together and had developed the cohesion and group identity necessary to work together and earn the gold medal.

The fifth and last proposition states that “Intentional group development involves interaction with intentional change at other levels of human/social organization” (Akrivou et al, 2006, p. 698).  The men’s basketball team struggled to even recognize multiple levels of human interaction; they struggled to raise their vision to a shared team ideal, preferring to see individual ideals.  They struggled to recognize the need to change both individually and as a team.  The women’s soccer team did not seem to struggle with these issues; they recognized the need for individual and team development.

In summary, the 2004 U.S. men’s basketball team failed to apply the concepts of intentional change theory.  Presumably they shared the vision of bringing home the gold, but it seems they failed to really share the vision of what it would take to achieve that lofty goal.  They struggled to achieve team cohesion and lacked resonance in their efforts to bring home the gold. 

References

April Heinrichs. (n.d.). April Heinrichs. Retrieved from https://ussoccerplayers.com/history/people/april-heinrichs

Akrivou, K., Boyatzis, R. E., & McLeod, P. L. (2006). The evolving group: Towards a prescriptive theory of intentional group development. Journal of Management Development, 25(7), 689-706. doi:10.1108/02621710610678490

Halloran, J. D. (2013, April 23). The Rise and Rise of the United States Women's National Team. Retrieved from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1614739-the-rise-and-rise-of-the-united-states-womens-national-team

Maisonet, E. (2017, September, 2017). The miseducation of the 2004 U.S. men’s Olympic basketball team. Retrieved from https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2731575-the-miseducation-of-the-2004-us-mens-olympic-basketball-team