Introduction
Call them the Disrupters: Their unsung handiwork can change the flow of a game and the outcome of a series. ‘The pretty stuff makes the highlights,’ says [National Basketball Association’s] Dallas Mavericks coach Avery Johnson, ‘but it’s the guys who do the down-and-dirty work who can make or break a team.’
(McCallum, 2005, p. 32)
As the above quotation highlights, there are a number of different role responsibilities present within a group that are essential to the group’s overall success. Among other concepts such as group norms, status and leadership, roles represent one of the struc- tural aspects of groups (Carron et al., 2005). Specifically, a role has been defined as a set of behaviors expected from a person occupying a position in a specific social context (e.g. Biddle and Thomas, 1966; Katz and Kahn, 1978).
Historically, the study of roles within a group’s structure originated outside the fields of sport and exercise. The emergence of terminology and concepts related to roles can be found in sociological and psychological literature dating as far back as the early twentieth century (e.g. Cottrell, 1933). However, research on roles within social psychology was really brought to the fore by two prominent groups of researchers in the middle of the last century. The first involved Bales and his colleagues (e.g. Bales and Slater, 1955; Parsons and Bales, 1955) and the second corresponded to the work by Kahn et al. (1964). This literature, related to the types of roles that could exist in groups as well as the processes involved in how role information and responsibilities are conveyed among group members, is discussed in the subsequent section.
Types of roles
Two different, yet compatible, general categorizations of role types have been advanced (Bales and Slater, 1955; Mabry and Barnes, 1980). Bales and colleagues (e.g. Bales and Slater, 1955) suggested that roles within a group could be differentiated on the basis of the functions they serve. The first function outlined by Bales was task related – role responsibilities that are directly oriented toward the instrumental objectives of the group. A sport example of a task related role could be the team’s captain. The second general function of roles outlined by Bales was social in nature – role responsibilities that are related to the maintenance and harmony of the group. A team clown or social organizer would be examples of this type of social role in a team sport environment. It
should be noted that this task versus social differentiation follows along the lines of propositions advanced by Lewin (1935) who suggested that the two primary concerns of any group are locomotion (i.e. reaching the group’s goals) and maintenance (i.e. ensuring the group continues to exist by satisfying members’ affiliation needs).
Although Bales’ conceptualization of roles focused on function, Mabry and Barnes’ (1980) conceptualization focused on the level of formality that may exist within roles. Specifically, Mabry and Barnes (1980) proposed that roles could be formal or informal in nature. Formal roles are those that are prescribed by the organization for the indi- vidual while informal roles are those that arise over time through the interactions among group members. To use the previous examples, it is likely that any prescribed leadership roles in sport would be formal in nature (e.g. the coach or team as a whole would designate players to leadership roles). However, it is also likely that a team’s social coordinator could be a role that arises naturally through the interactions of the team. Different levels of formality of the role will likely have implications for how responsibilities are communicated and performed. For example, informal role expect- ations might be transmitted through more subtle cues (e.g. reinforcement, praise) rather than direct communication and prescription necessary for formal roles.
While the scope of the above two categorizations are general, other researchers have sought to identify specific roles in their social contexts from a task and social perspec- tive, including both formal and informal responsibilities. For example, in the business domain, Belbin (1981) identified nine key roles that are present for effective manage- ment. These include team worker, chairperson, completer/finisher and monitor evalu- ator (Fisher et al., 1998). From a team sport perspective, Eys (2000) identified eight types of responsibilities in an interactive environment including positional, formal and informal team leadership, social, communication, motivational, organizational and peer leadership (e.g. guiding specific others).
Transfer of role information
As can be inferred from the previous discussion, there is the potential for many roles and responsibilities to be present in a group environment. In some cases, individuals must carry out more than one responsibility simultaneously (Fisher et al., 1998), pro- gress through multiple responsibilities over the course of a season or career, or share responsibilities with others. These situations have the potential to be confusing for group members. Thus, proper role communication is necessary to ensure effective team functioning. Kahn et al. (1964), in their work on role ambiguity and conflict in organizations, provided a role episode model that has since been adapted for a sport environment by Eys et al. (2005a; Figure 6.1). This model highlights a number of events that occur between two individuals, in which a role sender communicates a set of role responsibilities to a focal person. In the sport context, the individuals who typically occupy these positions are the coach (i.e. the role sender) and the athlete (i.e. the focal person). However, it is likely that in a group environment, the majority of individuals can fulfill the roles of both role sender and focal person at one point in time or another. For example, in a collegiate or professional setting, the coach consistently provides role information to his or her athletes but also receives (i.e. is the focal person) coaching role information from an athletic director or owner. Likewise, an athlete will receive information from a head or assistant coach but might also transmit information to other players on the team.
Regardless of who specifically sends or receives role information, the role episode model highlights five events in this transfer. The first event highlights that the role sender will develop certain expectations for the focal person. In a sport context, a coach will likely spend a fair amount of time determining which player should fill each position on the team. Once expectations for the focal person (or people) are deter- mined, the role sender will then exert role pressure (Event 2) on the focal person to accept and comply with these expectations. In most cases, the third event in the process occurs when the focal person perceives that the role sender has developed certain expectations for him or her and subsequently responds (Event 4). It would be hoped that the focal person perceives the expectations to be clear, fair and consequently com- plies by engaging in the behavior required by the role sender. However, as we will explain, there are many role elements (or perceptions) that can lead to negative responses (e.g. not performing the behavior correctly or simply not performing the behavior).
In the subsequent sections of this chapter these role elements are defined and research that has examined specific questions related to each is introduced. In addition, practical implications are discussed regarding the development of positive role percep- tions and the implementation of role interventions with sport teams. Finally, future research directions are suggested to build on a growing body of role-related literature, taking into account both the sport and exercise contexts.
Theory and research
In earlier research about roles in industrial and organizational psychology, the label of ‘role theory’ was given to describe the body of knowledge related to this topic (Biddle and Thomas, 1966). However, a theory represents ‘a set of interrelated facts that pre- sents a systematic view of some phenomenon in order to describe, explain and predict
Figure 6.1 A theoretical framework of factors influencing the transmission and reception of role
responsibilities. (Adapted from Kahn et al., 1964, p. 30, by Eys et al., 2005, p. 385. Reprinted with permission from Sage Publications.)
its future occurrences’ (Weinberg and Gould, 2003, p. 13). As a consequence, research- ers (e.g. Shaw and Costanzo, 1982) have suggested that the present body of knowledge reflects a system of concepts that revolve around the topic of roles as opposed to an all encompassing theory. From a sport perspective, a number of these concepts have been discussed and examined including cognitive elements such as role ambiguity/ clarity, role efficacy, role conflict, role overload and role acceptance. In addition, the affec- tive element of role satisfaction has been discussed, but investigated to a much lesser degree. Finally, the behavioral element of role performance has been integrated and examined in relation to some of the aforementioned cognitive and affective elements.
Role ambiguity/clarity
Role ambiguity has been defined as a lack of clear information regarding the expect- ations associated with one’s position (Kahn et al., 1964). The term ‘role clarity’ is another accepted term to describe this element but it refers to the other extreme of the role understanding continuum (i.e. possessing clear information about role responsi- bilities). To date, role ambiguity is the most extensively researched aspect of role involvement in sport.
Recently, Beauchamp et al. (2002) proposed a four dimension conceptual model of role ambiguity for sport based on their earlier research (e.g. Beauchamp and Bray, 2001; Eys and Carron, 2001) as well as Kahn et al.’s (1964) influential work. Their conceptual model indicates that it is necessary for athletes to be clear regarding (a) the scope of their responsibilities (i.e. a person’s range of responsibilities on the team), (b) the behaviors necessary to fulfill their responsibilities, (c) how they will be evaluated with regard to their performance of assigned roles and (d) what the consequences will be in the case that responsibilities go unfulfilled. In addition to these four dimensions, Beauchamp and colleagues proposed that in the interactive team environment, athletes could differ in their perceptions of these four dimensions in the separate contexts of offensive and defensive play.
Role efficacy
Efficacy related research in sport has typically addressed the concepts of self-efficacy (i.e. ‘beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to produce given attainments’; Bandura, 1997, p. 3) or collective efficacy (i.e. beliefs in the capabilities of the group; Bandura 1986, 1997). Bandura noted that these efficacy beliefs can have a strong influence over an individual’s choice, effort and persistence in performing an activity. However, in addition to beliefs related to the individual (i.e. self- efficacy) and the group as a whole (i.e. collective efficacy), Bray et al. (2002) suggested that in a group setting where members’ roles overlap and require a high level of inter- dependence, it is likely that individuals will develop efficacy beliefs about their ability to carry out their roles in combination with others’ responsibilities and competencies. These are referred to as role efficacy beliefs, which are specifically defined as team members’ beliefs about their capabilities to successfully carry out interdependent for- mal role functions.
Role conflict
A cognitive element that has been closely linked with role ambiguity is role conflict (e.g. Kahn et al., 1964). Role conflict is the presence of incongruent expectations for a focal person. For example, in a sport environment, an individual who has a desire to coach may not be able to devote time to this activity because of family role responsi- bilities. Thus, the family role (e.g. mother or father) conflicts with the sport role.
Kahn et al. (1964) highlighted a number of different types of role conflict that can exist. The above example represents one of these types; namely, inter-role conflict. Inter- role conflict occurs when expectations from two or more contexts interfere with one another (e.g. family versus physical activity). However, intra-role conflict (i.e. conflict occurring within the same role context) can also exist in three different forms. First, intra-sender conflict occurs when a single role sender develops multiple expectations (i.e. two or more) for the focal person that are inconsistent with one another. One example that describes this particular type of conflict is an ice-hockey coach who emphasizes aggression and physicality for his or her players but also expects the players to stay out of the penalty box.
A second type of intra-role conflict is termed inter-sender conflict. Likely a very common form of conflict, this occurs when two role senders apply incongruent expectations to a focal person regarding the same role. This might occur in a sport setting when multiple coaches (e.g. a head coach and an assistant coach) advise an athlete on how to perform his or her responsibilities. Finally, a third type of intra-role conflict is termed person-role conflict and occurs when the expected role responsi- bilities conflict with the values or motivation of the focal person. This last type of interpersonal conflict is exemplified when an athlete is asked to perform a lower status role (e.g. a bench player or non-starter) that is at odds with his or her expectations.
A related term that is often associated with role conflict is role overload. In general, there has been a lack of conceptual clarity regarding this construct. In some cases it has been likened to role conflict itself (e.g. a high number of incompatible expectations that are impossible to complete in a required length of time; Kahn et al., 1964). In a discussion on this topic, Eys et al. (2006) noted that role overload might manifest itself in different ways in an athletic environment. First, an athlete might feel that a single role responsibility is beyond his or her personal capabilities. This was referred to as a qualitative overload. Conversely, an athlete may be expected to perform an excessive number of responsibilities and in such instances could be said to experience quantita- tive role overload (Eys et al., 2006). Overall, while role conflict and role overload are conceptually somewhat similar, the former relates to incompatibility of responsibilities while the latter refers to an excessive amount of responsibilities.
Role acceptance
A final cognitive role element is role acceptance. At present, role acceptance is the least examined of the cognitive elements due in part to a lack of conceptual clarity. Recently, Eys et al. (2006) suggested that role acceptance represents ‘a dynamic, covert process that reflects the degree to which an athlete perceives his or her own expect- ations for role responsibilities as similar to and agreeable with, the expectations for role responsibilities determined by his or her role senders’ ( p. 246). In the past some researchers have used the terms role acceptance and role satisfaction interchangeably
(Carron and Hausenblas, 1998), despite the fact that the two constructs appear to be conceptually different. Not only does the above definition highlight how these two role perceptions differ, but also by emphasizing that acceptance involves a similarity of expectations shared among the role sender and focal person, this definition deviates from the term ‘compliance’, which would only involve the overt behavioral response from the focal person.
Role satisfaction
Generally, role satisfaction represents the degree of fulfillment the role gives the indi- vidual (e.g. how happy people are with their responsibilities). In an attempt to define role satisfaction, Eys et al. (2006) adapted a definition of job satisfaction (Locke, 1976) from the industrial-organizational literature to the role domain in sport. Specifically, they defined role satisfaction as ‘a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the per- ception of one’s [role] as fulfilling or allowing the fulfillment of one’s important [role] values’ (p. 246).
Rail (1987) suggested that there are four major perceptions that lead individuals to feel that their roles are satisfying. The first is the perceived degree to which their abilities and strengths are being utilized. A second perception is how important mem- bers view their role in relation to and within the group’s context. Receiving feedback and recognition for role efforts was identified as being a third perception relevant to role satisfaction. Finally, the degree to which individuals are given autonomy in per- forming their role responsibilities is also important for role satisfaction. Therefore, it would be predicted that role satisfaction would be elevated if an individual’s abilities are being utilized correctly, the role is considered important within the group, feedback and recognition regarding the role performance is relatively consistent and construct- ive and the individual is given some control over how responsibilities are fulfilled.
Role performance
The final role element that has been discussed is behavioral in nature and is termed role performance. This particular element would seem to be an outcome related to the individual’s general ability to complete the role responsibilities as well as his/her understanding of and motivation to perform them. Therefore, all the previous role elements discussed will likely influence role performance and consequently, role per- formance has been examined in many of the recent studies conducted in sport. These and other research findings are discussed in the subsequent section.
Review of sport-related role research
Prior to 2001, there was a limited amount of sport research that focused specifically on the topic of roles. As examples of this early research both Dawe (1990) and Grand and Carron (1982) examined the concepts of role clarity and role acceptance/satisfaction in sport teams. However, in both cases the role elements examined were not necessarily the prime focus. In the case of the former study, role clarity and role acceptance were studied in relation to another major variable of concern; cohesion. For the latter study, role elements were considered as part of a larger group evaluation measure termed the Team Climate Questionnaire. In both cases, the conceptualization of the role elements
was unidimensional in nature. A final example of earlier sport research was conducted in two studies by Capel (1986 and Capel et al., 1987). The results of these investigations suggested that increased role conflict and role ambiguity were associated with an increased possibility of burnout in athletic trainers and high school coaches.
More recently, conceptual advances in the above role elements have resulted in an enhanced understanding of (a) the inter-relationships between the role elements, (b) the importance of optimizing perceptions of role responsibilities, (c) the influence of potential antecedents of poor role perceptions and (d) possible moderators of role relationships. Each of these recent additions to the literature is discussed in turn.
Inter-relationships of role elements
It would be logical to suggest that some role elements are related to one another and, in some cases there may be a great deal of overlap (e.g. role overload and role conflict). Recently, researchers have sought to examine the inter-relationships and pathways that link the role variables. For example, Beauchamp and Bray (2001) found that role ambi- guity mediated the relationship between intra-role conflict and role efficacy. More specifically, a higher degree of role conflict was associated with greater role ambiguity, which in turn was related to lower perceptions of competence with regard to role responsibilities (i.e. role efficacy). In a similar example that was primarily focused on assessing the validity of their operationalization of role ambiguity, Beauchamp et al. (2002) found that role efficacy mediated the role ambiguity–role performance relation- ship in such a way that clarity of role responsibilities was positively related to beliefs in performing successfully, which in turn were positively associated with actual role per- formance. Finally, Beauchamp et al. (2005a) found a negative association between role ambiguity and role satisfaction.
In a series of studies examining role efficacy as the focal point, Bray and colleagues (Beauchamp et al., 2005c; Bray et al., 2004; Bray and Brawley, 2002) identified similar relationships between role efficacy, role performance and role ambiguity. First, in a study with Spanish youth soccer players, Bray et al. (2004) again found support for the role efficacy-role performance link. Using a slightly different approach, Bray and Brawley (2002) examined whether perceptions of role ambiguity moderated this rela- tionship. Specifically, they discovered that the role efficacy-role performance relation- ship was more salient under conditions where athletes were clear about their roles. This result is perhaps unsurprising given that if an athlete does not understand his/her role