Differences In Team Performance Research Articles

Space definition for match analysis in soccer.

Studies on match analysis in soccer frequently use some kind of geometrical field division in order to situate and classify the actions observed. However, as an invasion game, with both teams acting in the same regular space, intertwining and creating play configurations of outstanding complexity and dynamism, a more appropriate procedure to locate actions encompassing its tactical meaning seems to be in relation to opponent distribution in the field. Aiming to provide a contextual notation of actions, this paper proposes the utilization of a match analysis instrument based on the opposition’s spatial configuration called Space of Defensive Occupation (SDO). SDO emerges from the application of the concept of space effectively covered (Merand, 1976; Gréhaigne, 1992) to the entire team while defending. Apart from peripheral limits, the position of players inside the SOD is also considered, resulting in internal subdivisions and generating different zones. For the purpose of studying the relationship between the actions of assistance pass, reception and shot and SDO zones, we have analysed 112 shot attempt situations from seven matches of Brazil and Germany in the 2002 World Cup. Variables were classified into four groups:(1) zone of action’s occurrence – frontal (F), central midfield (cM), peripheral midfield (pM), central defence (cD), peripheral defence (pD), central space behind the defence (cB), peripheral space behind the defence (pB);(2) action – assistance pass, reception and shot; (3) shot attempt result – successful or unsuccessful;(4) team – Brazil, Brazil’s opponents, Germany and Germany’s opponents. Chi-square tests indicated that cD is proportionally the main reception and shooting zone, while cB and pB presented the highest relative efficiency. cM and pM are essentially assistance pass zone, though cM’s relative efficiency is specially low. Both of these showed the smaller relative efficiency to reception and shot. For the assistance pass, cD is the most efficient; conversely, there is no significant difference between successful and unsuccessful distributions among SDO zones. According to the spatial distribution of actions related to successful shot attempts, assistance pass was most diversified and unpredictable (J=0.94) than reception (J=0.83) and shot (J=0.76). Brazil played a larger proportion of assistance passes in central zones with reception in central zones than Germany, and a smaller proportion of assistance passes in peripheral zones with reception in central zones than its opponents. Germany did not present significant differences compared to its opponents. The instrument’s reliability was tested with values ranging from K=0.73 to 0.90 for inter-observers test and from K= 0.83 to 0.93 for intra-observers test. The analysis of results suggests that SDO is a reliable instrument, capable of spatially characterizing actions so as to point out differences in team performance.

Relating Ability and Personality to the Efficacy and Performance of Dyadic Teams

We examined the extent to which member ability and personality relate to differences in team performance and team efficacy in a task setting that simulated the high degree of role interdependence and human-technology interaction found in many military contexts. 168 male participants were assigned to dyadic teams and trained for two weeks to learn and perform a complex computer task that simulated the demands of a dynamic aviation environment. Participants also completed measures of general mental ability, psychomotor ability, and the Big Five personality traits (extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability). Team performance and team efficacy were assessed multiple times throughout training. Results indicated that ability was a critical determinant of both performance and efficacy, and personality traits yielded an incremental contribution to both performance and efficacy. In particular, psychomotor ability and conscientiousness were the strongest and most consistent factors associated with team effectiveness.

The effect of personality type on team performance

Develops a model of the theoretical impact of individual personality differences on the productivity of information systems (IS) development teams, then illustrates that impact by presenting a case example. Following a discussion of team composition and MBTI personality types, analyses the attributes of two IS development teams based on age, intelligence, problem‐solving ability, task responsibility, and personality‐type composition. In this case there were no significant differences in the two teams other than the differences in personality‐type composition. Determines that the differences in team performance were primarily caused by differences in the personality‐type composition of the two teams.