Using the concepts within ICT focused on the team level, reflect on why the Olympic US Women’s Soccer team won so often and the US Dream Team basketball men’s team did so poorly in 2000 and 2004?
According to U. S. Soccer’s website (2016), “ the U.S. Women’s National Team is by far the most successful country in Olympic women’s soccer history, having won four gold medals and one silver medal in the five competitions that have held so far. The USA is 23-2-3 all-time in the Olympics, having lost only in the gold medal game in 2000 and the opening match of the 2008 tournament, both to Norway” (para 1). Shifting to the Men’s 2004 U.S. Olympic basketball team or “Dream Team” whose last loss was in the Summer Olympics in 2004 at the Athens’ Games. “The loss came against Argentina in the semifinals of the medal round. The U.S., led by Allen Iverson and Tim Duncan, fell to Argentina, 89-81. The U.S. went on to win the bronze medal” (Holleran, 2016). Both teams were known to be the most talented and dominant of their respective sports in the world. So why did they both fall short of their goal of bringing home the gold medal? I won’t even begin to claim I can definitively explain exactly why each team lost. In sports, why teams win and lose can be analyzed down to the smallest detail, but such explanations cannot necessarily be proven. However, I believe some elements within ICT may lend an explanation. Boyatzis (2006) states “Intentional change theory (ICT) is a complex system. At the individual level, ICT describes the essential components and process of desirable, sustainable change in one’s behavior, thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. The ‘change’ may be in a person’s actions, habits or competencies. It may be in their dreams or aspirations. It may be in the way they feel in certain situations or around certain people. It may be a change in how they look at events at work or in life” (p.609).
A team in any sport at any level all want to win. Both the men’s basketball and women’s soccer teams shared the same vision, goal, and ideal: to win. Although sharing the same ideals is a key component to intentional change of a group, it does not necessarily equate to accomplishing a group’s shared goal. Akrivou, Boyatzis, and McLeod (2006) discuss Tuckman’s linear-progressive model in which the four stages of group development are proposed: forming, storming, norming, and performing. They postulate that “In the forming stage, testing becomes the key concern of groups. In the storming stage, resistance to both group influence and task requirement is shown. In the norming stage, resistance and conflict are overcome. In the performing stage, interpersonal structure becomes the tool through which group energy is channeled into the task with results enhancing group performance” (Akrivou et al., 2006, p. 693). I think it is safe to surmise that each of these teams was in different stages of group development. The women’s soccer team spent a considerable amount of time together prior to the Olympics which probably put them further along in development. Whereas, the men’s basketball team formed only months before the Olympic games began. Akrivou et al., (2006) also discuss group development in relation to intentional change and how it emerges through a series of five discoveries. Boyatzis (2006) states that “desired, sustainable change within a family, team or small group occurs through the cyclical iteration of the group through what can be called the “group level definition” of the five discoveries” (p. 618). The five discoveries are as follows: Discovery #1: emergence of shared ideal, vision, or dream. Discovery #2: exploration of norms, paradoxes, challenges, and gaps. Discovery #3: the group’s learning agenda. Discovery #4: group experimentation and practice. Discovery #4: resonant relationships. I think the explanation as to why the men’s team fell short of their goal is a little easier to recognize than the women’s soccer team. They simply were not together long enough to successfully develop as a group and had yet to build strong relationships with each other. They were probably still in the forming or storming stages of development and had yet to enter into Discovery #2 in which they explored norms, paradoxes, challenges, and gaps. The women’s loss is more difficult to explain. They played together for quite some time and seemed to be well into the latter stages of group development and discovery. Many even blamed the loss on a poor call from a referee that resulted in the opposing team’s winning goal. Sometimes in sports, there may be what appears as an explanation to losing or valid reasons for not performing and sometimes there is simply no explanation.
References:
Akrivou, K., Boyatzis, R. E., & McLeod, P. L. (2006). The evolving group: Towards a prescriptive theory of intentional group development. The Journal of Management Development, 25(7), 689-706.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2006). An overview of intentional change from a complexity perspective. Journal of Management Development,25(7), 607-623. doi:10.1108/02621710610678445
Holleran, A. (2016). When the united states last lost in mens’ basketball. Retrieved from http://thespun.com/news/united-states-basketball-loss-olympics
WNT. (2016, August 05). A History of the U.S. WNT at the Olympic Games. Retrieved from http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2016/08/05/19/54/160805-wnt-a-history-of-the-usa-at-the-olympic-games
No comments:
Post a Comment