Divided we fall: Examining the relationship between horizontal communication and team commitment via team cohesion

Abstract

The present study examined the relationship between horizontal communication (intra-team) and team commitment via team cohesion. Horizontal communication included positive conflict, distinctiveness, negative conflict, and acceptance dimensions. Team cohesion included group integration-task and group integration-social dimensions. A total of 340 intercollegiate student–athletes from several different institutions in Hong Kong, China, participated in the study. Data analysis included a confirmatory factor analysis and structural equational modeling. Several interesting results were found. The acceptance dimension of horizontal communication had a significant positive association with both group integration-task and group integration-social. The negative conflict dimension of horizontal communication also had a significant negative association with both group integration-task and group integration-social. No direct effects of horizontal communication on team commitment were found. However, the data showed that horizontal communication had indirect effects on team commitment via both team cohesion dimensions. The links between acceptance and commitment via group integration-task and group integration-social, for example, were both significant.

Keywords

Intercollegiate athletics management organizational behaviour

Introduction

American industrialist, Henry Ford, made the observation that “Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success”.¹ It is difficult to imagine a discordant sport team plagued by communication issues coming together, staying together, and experiencing great and continued success in sports because achievement in athletic competition is contingent upon far more than dedication and determination. Across the range of possible variables contributing to productive coach–athlete relationships and healthy bonds between players, communication is a key factor of success.^2–5

The purpose of this study is to foster a more complete and accurate understanding of the direct and indirect effects of horizontal communication processes on psychological outcomes in sport organizations. Horizontal communication describes “interpersonal and socio-emotional interactions with the proximate colleagues and others” (Postmes et al.,⁶ p.227). Interpersonal exchanges between athletes on the same team qualify as a specific type of horizontal communication found in sport organizations. Even though horizontal communication amongst athletes on a team may directly influence athletes’ levels of team commitment, the possibility exists that other variables offer a mechanism through which the relationship between intra-team communication and team commitment can be better understood. For instance, interpersonal communication between teammates extends well beyond cordial greetings to include high-quality message content that helps develop unity among athlete relationships and strengthen the collective pursuit of team goals.⁷ Thus, in the research model examined presently, team cohesion is positioned as a mediator of the relationship between horizontal communication and team commitment.

Theoretical foundations

Social exchange theory⁸ and social identity theory⁹ informed the development of the proposed research model (see Figure 1). These complementary perspectives offer well-matched theoretical structures that can help explain the expected relationships between horizontal communication, team cohesion, and team commitment. Social exchange theory describes how individuals in a group are likely to preserve membership (in the group) so long as membership results in more positive benefits (e.g., camaraderie, goal attainment, career satisfaction, job satisfaction) than negative consequences (e.g., stress, humiliation, deteriorating state of physical, and/or psychological wellbeing). That is, interpersonal exchanges between group members are evaluated according to some sort of economic or social cost-to-benefit ratio established by each member of a particular group.

Figure 1.

Proposed model of horizontal communication, team cohesion, and commitment.

Complementing social exchange theory is social identity theory. This theory explains the extent to which an individual’s sense of worth is based on membership in a specific group such as a family unit, sport team, social club, or vocation.⁹ Social identity can offer group members a critical source of self-esteem. Apple, for example, is one of the most profitable technology companies in the world just as Manchester United of the English Premier League (EPL) is one of the most valuable sport teams in the world. Apple and Manchester United employees who strongly identify with their respective employers may experience a heightened sense of self-worth because of their affiliation with a leading business brand.

Team sports represent a specific type of social group that can offer group members a sense of belonging, confidence, and positive self-image. Interpersonal exchanges take place within social groups. During these interactions, group members can exchange a variety of key resources such as love, status, information, goods, services, and money.¹⁰ The exchange of these resources can influence group members’ perceptions of the utility and value of maintaining membership in a social group. If individuals evaluate group membership through an economic lens, for example, then they will view membership in a group as advantageous so long as it benefits them financially. Horizontal communication, as a resource to be exchanged, may be of particular value to members of sport teams because it offers them opportunities to share information, develop familiarity, and cultivate an enhanced sense of belonging to a valued social group.³ Horizontal communication also tends to increase attachment to a small group and improve cohesion in the group.¹¹ Enhanced team cohesion may then lead group members to place greater value on their membership status and become more committed to their team.

Research model and hypothesis development

Interpersonal communication within a sport organizational context can be understood as the process of communication employed by organizational members to achieve personal or team objectives by way of social exchanges with pertinent individuals within the organization.¹² The proposed research model focuses on horizontal communication, which is a specific type of interpersonal communication likely to be present with sport teams, and how this form of communication impacts team cohesion and commitment. Each aspect of the proposed research model is illustrated in Figure 1.

Horizontal communication is divided into four sub-constructs based on the work of Sullivan and Feltz.³ They proposed that effective communication includes varying degrees of positive conflict, distinctiveness, negative conflict, and acceptance. Positive conflict refers to individuals managing disruption via constructive forms of communication. Teammates attempting to discover solutions together through open communication rather than exhibiting frustration during arguments or disagreements are representative of positive conflict. Negative conflict refers to confrontational and destructive forms of communication that stem from intra-team conflict. Teammates shouting at or confronting each other when they are angry or in disagreement are forms of negative conflict. Next, distinctiveness is the communication of a communal but inimitable identity. Distinctiveness comprises verbal communication (e.g., nicknames and within-team slang) and non-verbal communication (e.g., high-fives). The fourth sub-construct, acceptance, represents appreciative and thoughtful expressions between teammates. Acceptance primarily focuses on verbal support among members rather than non-verbal support.³

Team cohesion is positioned as a mediator between horizontal communication and team commitment. This variable represents “a dynamic process, which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain unified in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of members’ affective needs”(Carron et al.,¹³ p.213). Team cohesion is divided into social and task-oriented aspects of cohesion in the proposed research model. These associated but distinctive aspects of cohesion are adapted from Widmeyer et al.’s¹⁴ viewpoint on team cohesion as the combination of group integration-task (GIT) and group integration-social (GIS) components. The former aspect of cohesion describes the perceptions of group members regarding the similarity and unification of the tasks and objectives of the group, whereas the latter aspect describes the perceptions of the group members regarding the similarity and unification of the group as a social unit.

Lastly, commitment to a team pertains to the general sense of psychological attachment to a team for which an individual is a member.¹⁵ This conceptualization of commitment is similar to but distinctive from sport commitment, which represents the “the psychological state to persist in a sport over time”(Scanlan et al.⁶ p.234). Sport commitment is often conceptualized with Scanlan et al.’s^16,17 Sport Commitment Model (SCM), which is a well-established theoretical model for studying athlete involvement in sport. The current study is focused on the strength of the athletes’ identification with a particular sport team, whereas the SCM is focused on why athletes remain involved in their chosen sport. This conceptual distinction is important because the present focus is not sport participation or commitment to a general sense of sport participation, such as commitment to the sport of basketball at the collegiate level, but on commitment to an athlete’s team.

Further, in the present study, team commitment is captured by affective commitment. This is a specific form of commitment that refers to individuals’ levels of emotional attachment and loyalty toward their team.¹⁸ Although other types of team commitment exist, such as normative and continuance, affective commitment was included as the key outcome in the research model because this form of commitment tends to have the strongest and most favorable correlations with individual- and organizational-level outcomes.¹⁹

Horizontal communication – Team cohesion relationship

A number of studies^3,11,20–22 have found that effective communication positively influences team cohesion. The acceptance, positive conflict, and negative communication aspects of horizontal communication, for example, were found to have significant relationships with task cohesion amongst recreational sport participants.²³ Further, in developing and updating the scale for intra-team communication, Sullivan and Feltz³ as well as Sullivan and Short²² reported correlations between each dimension of horizontal communication and GIT and GIS. Thus, for H₁, each dimension of horizontal communication is expected to have a significant influence on GIT and GIS.

H₁: Horizontal communication (acceptance, distinctness, positive conflict, and negative conflict) will directly affect team cohesion (GIT and GIS). More precisely, the acceptance, distinctiveness, and positive conflict dimensions will have a significant positive association with team cohesion whereas the negative conflict dimension will have a significant negative association with team cohesion.

Team cohesion as mediator

Team cohesion, often called “team chemistry”, is a critical element of team success.^4,5 Indeed, cohesive teams have been positively linked to a variety of valuable group-level outcomes. Team satisfaction,²⁴ collective efficacy,²⁵ and improved team performance and competition success^26–28 are just a few of the beneficial outcomes associated with team cohesion.

Effective communication between members of the same team should create conditions for greater team cohesion and higher affective commitment levels among team members.^11,29 Cohesive teams tend to work more effectively and perform better than less cohesive teams.^4,23,30 Individuals working in highly cohesive groups are also more likely to exhibit greater levels of commitment to their teams and organizations,^31,32 which is why the proposed relationship between horizontal communication and commitment is expected to be mediated by team cohesion. Accordingly, for H₂, two types of team cohesion (GIT and GIS) are proposed to mediate the relationship between team communication and team commitment.

H₂: Team cohesion (GIT and GIS) will mediate the relationship between horizontal communication (acceptance, distinctiveness, positive conflict, negative conflict) and team commitment.

Method

Participants and procedures

The population of the current study was comprised of student–athletes participating in intercollegiate athletic competitions at four different institutions in Hong Kong, China. Three hundred fifty-four of 400 questionnaires that were distributed to the student–athletes were completed and returned. Of the 354 completed questionnaires, 340 were deemed usable for this study. A total of 175 male (51.5%) and 165 female (48.5%) student–athletes from 11 different team sports participated in the study. The greatest percentages of participants were from the sports of soccer (20.6%), volleyball (16.8%), and track and field (12.1%). Table 1 provides a more complete demographic profile of the student–athletes who participated in this research.

Table 1.

Demographics of respondents.

	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender
Female	165	48.5
Male	175	51.5
Length of membership
Below 6 months	83	24.4
6–11 months	42	12.4
12–17 months	65	19.1
18–23 months	43	12.6
24–29 months	63	18.5
30–35 months	6	1.8
Above 36 months	38	11.2
Profile of sport
Soccer	70	20.6
Volleyball	57	16.8
Track and field	41	12.1
Table tennis	39	11.5
Basketball	30	8.8
Swimming	24	7.1
Tennis	21	6.2
Badminton	21	6.2
Rugby	13	3.8
Handball	12	3.5
Taekwondo	12	3.5

The current study utilized a convenience sampling approach to collect data. Questionnaires in combination with consent forms were distributed to participants before or after their practice sessions during their regular sport seasons. The questionnaires required approximately 10 minutes for participants to complete. Institutional ethical approval was obtained through the host university because the current study involved human participants.

Instrumentation

A 33-item survey assessed horizontal communication, team cohesion, team commitment, and demographic information (e.g., gender and sport). The original version of the survey, inclusive of the aforementioned concepts and demographic profiles, was in English. However, Cantonese is the native language for most individuals living in Hong Kong, China. So, through a series of steps, the items of the survey were translated into Cantonese due to the potential for confusion or misunderstanding of an English-based survey by participants from Hong Kong.

The Cantonese version of the survey was prepared by the lead researcher and two sport management doctoral candidates at a university in Hong Kong. Next, the Cantonese version was back-translated into English by a faculty member at a different institution in Hong Kong who was independent from the current study. This was done to confirm that the initial translation was correctly performed. The individuals involved in the development of the survey and the back-translation process are fluent in both English and Cantonese. Finally, 10 student–athletes at a Hong Kong university were invited to confirm the accessibility (ease of completion), clarity, and readability of the questionnaire.

Sixteen items of the Scale for Effective Communication in Team Sports (SECTS; 3) were utilized to assess horizontal communication. The SECTS consists of four sub-scales that represent acceptance, distinctiveness, positive conflict, and negative conflict. All items of the scale began with the statement, “When our team communicates, we …” Each item was rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from one (hardly ever) to seven (very frequently). Sample items included: “… communicate our feelings honestly” for acceptance, “… use slang that only people on the team would understand” for distinctiveness, “… can clearly express when we are upset” for positive conflict, and “… shout when upset” for negative conflict. Cunningham and Eys² reported SECTS reliabilities ranging from .67 to .80.

Nine items of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ; 13) were used to measure team cohesion. Carron, et al.¹³ classified group cohesion into two categories: the individual versus group and task versus social concerns. Further, the original scale includes the two sub-constructs of GIT and GIS under the group integration category and the two sub-constructs of individual attraction to group-task and individual attraction to group-social under the individual attraction to group category. Of the four aspects comprising the original scale for team cohesion, the GIT (five items) and GIS (four items) aspects were chosen for the current study. The GIT and GIS sub-constructs of team cohesion were selected because individuals’ levels of attraction to the group-task and group-social aspects pertain more to their feelings about their personal involvement with the task and social situation than their perceptions of team cohesion as a group. The selection was also made because the current research attempted to examine a member’s perceptions of the team as totality (e.g., Our team ….) rather than a member’s personal attractions to the team (e.g., I am not happy ….) to find the relationships with team’s horizontal communication as totality (e.g., When our team communicates …).

The responses were reported by the participants on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree). Sample items included: “Our team is united in trying to reach its goals for performance” for GIT and “Our team member’s rarely party together (reverse coded)” for GIS. The reported reliabilities (α) of the sub-scales were .76 and 70.

A modified scale of affective organizational commitment with six items was adapted from the work of Meyer et al.²⁹ The reported reliability (α) of the scale was .85. Sample items included: “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my school years with this team”, “I do not feel a strong sense of ‘belonging’ to my team” (reverse coded), and “I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ with my team” (reverse coded). The six items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from one (not at all satisfied) to seven (very satisfied).

Data analysis

First, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) using AMOS 22 for each construct were performed to provide support for construct validity, followed by an omnibus CFA including all constructs to validate the relations of the observed variables and the underlying constructs in the measurement model. Three indexes, the chi-square test, the Steiger-Lind Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the Bentler Comparative Fit Index (CFI) were used to assess the absolute and comparative fit of the model.³³ Next, Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficients were examined to confirm the inter-item reliabilities of the collected data for each scale. Descriptive statistics were then calculated to report the means and standardized deviations of each construct of the study along with the corresponding demographic information. Lastly, structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied to test the proposed model. The model was also assessed by the same three indexes that were previously used for the CFA. Sobel’s formula [z = (a × b)/square of root of $(b^{2} {s_{a}}^{2} + a^{2} {s_{b}}^{2})$ ] was used to test the mediating effect of team cohesion between horizontal communication and team commitment.³⁴ In this formula, a is an unstandardized regression coefficient between an independent variable and a mediator, b is an unstandardized regression coefficient between a mediator and a dependent variable, S_a is the standard error of a, and S_b is the standard error of b.

Results

Model testing and modification

The results of the CFA for each construct indicated somewhat poor fit with data [χ2 (df) = 425.391 (98), χ2/df = 4.341, p < .001; CFI = .906; RMSEA = .099] for horizontal communication, [χ2 (df) = 273.899 (26), χ2/df = 10.535, p < .001; CFI = .789; RMSEA = .168] for team cohesion, and [χ2 (df) = 193.205 (9), χ2/df =23.467, p < .001; CFI = .888; RMSEA = .246] for team commitment. For the acceptance dimension of horizontal communication, there were two high modification index (MI) values which resulted in two additional residual correlations between the “sympathetic to each other’s point of view” and “trust each other” items and between the “display mutual respect” and “make sure all players are included” items. Those items were highly correlated with each other above r = .70, which could cause correlation errors.³⁵

For GIT, two reversed items (i.e., “Our team members have conflicting aspirations for the team’s performance” and “Our team members do not communicate freely about each athlete’s responsibilities during competition or practice”) exhibited factor loading values below .50, which is the cut-off value recommended by Ford et al.³⁵ A single item for GIS (i.e., “Our team would like to spend time together in the off season”) did not perform well either. For team commitment, a single team commitment item (i.e., “I really feel as if this team’s problems are my own”) was removed for the same reason. Additionally, a residual correlation between the “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my school years with this team” and “This team has a great deal of personal meaning for me” items was reported due to the high correlation between them. The model fits were reevaluated once these items were removed. Specifically, the results of CFAs showed the improvement of model fits and provided support for the validity of each construct with data [χ2 (df) = 371.330 (96), χ2/df = 3.868, p < .001; CFI = .921; RMSEA = .090] for horizontal communication, [χ2 (df) = 19.166 (8), χ2/df = 2.396, p < .05; CFI = .988; RMSEA = .064] for team cohesion, and [χ2 (df) = 5.127 (4), χ2/df = 1.282, p = .274; CFI =.999; RMSEA = .029] for team commitment.

The fit indices of the omnibus CFA for the measurement model, including all constructs, were acceptable fit to the data [χ2 (df) = 768.93(300), χ2/df = 2.56, p < .001; CFI = .927; RMSEA = .068]. Convergent validity was supported by the fact that all factor loadings were significant (p < .01), and the average variance extracted (AVE) values exceeded .50.^36,37 Discriminant validity was supported because all of the estimated AVE values were greater than the squared correlations between the constructs,³⁶ and none of the correlations between the constructs exceeded the suggested value of .85.³⁸ The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the constructs ranged from .802 (Positive Conflict) to .923 (Acceptance), which indicated the reliabilities of each construct exceeded the recommended benchmark of .70.³⁹ Table 2 displays the means, standard deviations, and factor loadings for each construct in the current study. Table 3 reports the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and the correlations between the constructs.

Table 2.

Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and coefficients (λ) for the variables (N = 340).

Variable	Items	M	SD	λ	AVE
Acceptance	When our team communicates, we …	5.13	.85		.628
	… are sympathetic to each other’s point of vie	4.97	.99	.753
	… trust each other	5.17	1.00	.811
	… communicate our feelings honestly	5.14	1.05	.827
	… use appropriate tone of voice	5.10	1.02	.778
	… share thoughts with one another	5.13	1.05	.832
	… display mutual respect	5.30	1.02	.846
	… make sure all players are included	5.07	1.09	.692
Distinctiveness	When our team communicates, we …	5.03	1.09		.616
	… use nicknames	5.40	1.26	.759
	… use slang that only people on the team would understand	5.01	1.27	.886
	… use gestures that only people on the team would understand	4.66	1.30	.699
Negative	When our team communicates, we …	3.80	1.32		.662
conflict	… shout when upset	4.12	1.54	.845
	… communicate anger through body language	3.96	1.56	.916
	… get “in each other’s faces” when we disagree	3.33	1.44	.660
Positive	When our team communicates, we …	4.59	1.03		.592
conflict	… can clearly express when we are upset	4.43	1.19	.666
	… try to communicate directly with those we have problems with when disagreements arise.	4.73	1.17	.871
	… get all problems out in the open when disagreements arise.	4.60	1.30	.757
GIS		4.89	1.03		.622
	Members of our team would rather go out on their own than get together as a team (Reversed)	5.21	1.24	.819
	Our team members rarely party together (reversed).	4.98	1.34	.852
	Members of our team do not stick together outside of practices and games (Reversed).	4.47	1.33	.684
GIT		4.99	1.10		.691
	Our team is united in trying to reach its goals for performance.	5.08	1.20	.835
	We all take responsibility for any loss or poor performance by our team.	5.01	1.27	.877
	If members of our team have problems in practices, everyone wants to help them so we can get back together again.	4.88	1.23	.779
TC		5.40	1.12		.667
	I would be very happy to spend the rest of my school years with this team	5.46	1.19	.615
	I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my team (reverse coded).	5.39	1.38	.915
	I do not feel “emotionally attached” to my team (reverse coded).	5.45	1.36	.961
	I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ with my team (reverse coded).	5.43	1.38	.943
	This team has a great deal of personal meaning for me.	5.27	1.25	.552

GIS: group integration-social, GIT: group integration-task; TC: team commitment.

Table 3.

Correlations among constructs and Cronbach Alphas (α) for the constructs.

	Acceptance	Distinctiveness	Positive	Negative	GISO	GITA	TC
Acceptance	(α = .923)
Distinctiveness	.671**	(α = .812)
Positive conflict	.537**	.507**	(α = .802)
Negative conflict	.014	.272**	.364**	(α = .843)
GIS	.323**	.236**	.131*	−.126*	(α = .827)
GIT	.535**	.424**	.398**	−.019	.232**	(α = .868)
TC	.534**	.395**	.320**	−.058	.506**	.545**	(α = .906)

GIS: group integration-social, GIT: group integration-task; TC: team commitment.

p < .01 *p < .05

Structural model testing

After testing the measurement model via CFA, the results of the proposed structural model incorporating team communication (acceptance, distinctiveness, negative conflict, and positive conflict), team cohesion (GIT and GIS), and team commitment revealed that the fit indices [χ2 (df) = 770.27 (301), χ2/df = 2.56, p < .001; CFI = .927; RMSEA = .068] were all acceptable.

The first hypothesis focused on the relationships between the four dimensions of horizontal communication and two dimensions of team cohesion. The results demonstrated that negative conflict (γ = −.140; SE = .067; p < .05) had a direct negative influence on GIT. Acceptance (γ = .391; SE = .122; p < .01) and positive conflict (γ = .288; SE = .103; p < .01) positively influenced GIT. Negative conflict (γ = −.170; SE = .082; p < .05) also had a direct negative influence on GIS and acceptance (γ = .326; SE = .147; p < .05) had a positive influence on GIS. Therefore, H₁ was mostly supported.

Specifically, the acceptance dimension of horizontal communication had a significant positive association with both GIT and GIS. The negative conflict dimension of horizontal communication had a significant negative association with both GIT and GIS. The positive conflict dimension of horizontal communication had a significant positive association with GIT but not GIS. Distinctiveness did not have a significant positive association with either GIT or GIS.

The second hypothesis focused on the mediating effects of the two dimensions of team cohesion between horizontal communication and team commitment. A fully mediated model was supported because the team communication factors did not have a direct effect on team commitment. Accordingly, the indirect influences of acceptance, positive conflict, and negative conflict on team commitment via team cohesion were examined using Sobel’s formula.^34,40 The distinctiveness component of horizontal communication was not included in the mediation analysis because it did not have a significant relationship with either aspect of team cohesion.

The link between acceptance and commitment via GIT was significant (z = 2.44; p < .05), and the magnitude of the indirect link was .171 (.391 × .431). The link between acceptance and commitment via GIS also was significant (z = 2.21; p < .05), and the magnitude of the indirect link was .192 (.326 × .588). Next, the link between positive conflict and commitment via GIT was significant (z = 2.61; p < .01), and the magnitude of the indirect link was .124 (.288 × .431). However, the indirect link between positive conflict and commitment via GIS was not supported because the positive conflict dimension of horizontal communication had no direct association with GIS. Lastly, the link between negative conflict and commitment via GIT was not significant (z = −1.92; p > .05) but the link between negative conflict and commitment via GIS was significant (z = −2.01; p < .05), and magnitude of the indirect link was −.099 (−.170 × .588). The final research model with complete results is provided in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Final research model of horizontal communication, team cohesion, and commitment.

Discussion

This study offers an initial investigation of horizontal communication, team cohesion, and team commitment in the context of Chinese collegiate sports. The design and results of this study make a number of significant contributions to the study and application of sport psychology and organizational behavior to sport teams. For instance, the current results generally support the notion that horizontal (intra-team) communication with proximate others increases cohesiveness.^3,11,23 Task aspects of team cohesion have been shown to have slightly greater impact on team cohesion and performance than social aspects of team cohesion.^27,28,31 Consistent with past efforts, in the present study, the acceptance, positive conflict, and negative conflict dimensions of horizontal communication exhibited significant relationships with GIT; however, only acceptance and negative conflict were linked to GIS.

Another interesting result is that of the four horizontal communication dimensions, only distinctiveness was not found to have direct relationships with either type of team cohesion. The lack of significance for the distinctiveness dimension is inconsistent with past efforts, including the work Sullivan and Feltz³ and Sullivan and Short.²² A possible explanation for our finding is that superficial interactions (e.g., calling teammates by nicknames, hanging out in the locker room) absent meaningful social exchanges with high-quality messages may not be important enough to team members to produce significant levels of team cohesion.⁷ In other words, to produce cohesion, the distinctiveness dimension may require pairing with more substantive interpersonal interactions.

Perhaps the most striking findings of the present study are the absence of a direct effect on team commitment by horizontal communication and that full mediating effects of team cohesion existed between several dimensions of horizontal communication and team commitment. The athletes in this study seemed to develop high levels of team commitment when they also perceived high levels of GIT or GIS. The GIT variable mediated the relationships between the acceptance and positive conflict dimensions of horizontal communication and team commitment. The GIS variable mediated the relationships between the acceptance and negative conflict dimensions of horizontal communication and team commitment. Previously, Postmes et al.⁶ found vertical communication (communication between a superior and subordinate) exhibited a stronger relationship with team commitment than horizontal communication. The present result offers further evidence of the apparent weak direct association between horizontal communication and team commitment. The results also underscore the importance of studying mediators, such as team cohesion, when looking to better understand the relationship between horizontal communication and team commitment.

Lastly, acceptance was the only dimension of horizontal communication that exerted indirect effects on team commitment via both GIT and GIS. Moreover, the magnitudes of the indirect effects of acceptance via GIT and GIS were .171 and .192, respectively; these were greater than the magnitudes of the other indirect effects of positive conflict (.124) via GIT and negative conflict (−.099) via GIS. Therefore, if coaches want to enhance team commitment, it appears they should focus on teaching athletes about this form of communication and, in a broader sense, create an environment in which athletes are encouraged, if not expected, to use forms of communication grounded in notions of acceptance and understanding (e.g., messages that demonstrate caring and appreciation for teammates).

Practical implications

The current study extends the existing research stream on sport team communication processes, team cohesion, and team commitment. The study also has coaching implications. Researchers point out that commitment to a team is contingent upon the social exchange processes between team members and the extent to which they come together as a group.^6,13,15,32 Given the associations that emerged in the current study, it is important to consider the relationships between different dimensions of horizontal communication and team commitment. A good starting point for coaches is the encouragement of acceptance communication, both between coaches and athletes and amongst teammates.⁴¹ In this study, acceptance communication was found to have a robust relationship to interpersonal relationship development and team commitment. This form of communication requires team members to act with integrity (i.e., consistency between word and deed), consider the thoughts and feelings of other team members before interacting with them, express their feelings and opinions openly and honestly, and empower and encourage teammates.

To further illustrate the importance of acceptance communication to sport teams, consider the team dynamics of Team Europe when they won the Ryder Cup in 2014. The team’s captain, Paul McGinley, was heralded for his strategic thinking, leadership, and an uncanny ability to connect with his players.⁴² He visited his players personally and talked frequently with them on the phone. He also listened carefully to his players and took copious notes on their conversations so as to better understand them and communicate with them. McGinley expressed a piece of his coaching philosophy thusly:

One of the things I’ve learned from the captains I’ve played under is that it is hard to address 12 people on the same level but the real management goes on in the micro level, on the 1 to 1 level, over the individual concerned.⁴³

Paul McGinley’s leadership in the Ryder Cup in 2014 is a great example of how acceptance communication can benefit a sport team. By extension, coaches across all sports and competitive levels would be wise to not only consider how they interact with their athletes, but evaluate how their team’s leaders interact with team members and what steps are taken to develop strong team leaders. Indeed, this latter point has important long-term implications for athletic programs because, as McGinley noted, he learned his caring behavior from his own captains. So, when it comes to developing individuals who can rise up and become strong team leaders, coaches should first look to themselves and how they are serving as role-models for their players. For example, conveying integrity, demonstrating acceptance and positive regard for players and coaching staff members, being empathetic, expressing confidence in others, and being willing to go above and beyond formal job requirements to help others are guidelines that indicate various ways that coaches can create a team culture in which acceptance communication is likely to thrive and be practiced by team leaders.

Another important implication for coaches pertains to the distinctiveness dimension of horizontal communication. Of the four dimensions of horizontal communication examined in this study, only distinctiveness was not found to have a relationship with GIT, GIS, or team commitment. It is not uncommon for members of a sport team to develop nicknames for each other or use team-specific slang when interacting with each other. In fact, this type of communication should not be discouraged just because it was not found to be significant in the present study. Still, the importance of distinctiveness to the specific development of team cohesion and team commitment may be minimal in certain sport contexts. Thus, it appears important for coaches to help their teams move beyond superficial interactions and pursue the development of frequent and high-quality interpersonal interactions so as to better develop team cohesion and commitment. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including showcasing common interests and values amongst team members, engaging in team building activities, developing ceremonies and symbols to develop collective identification with the team, and conducting exit interviews with team members so as to better understand how team cohesion and commitment can be improved in the future.

Limitations and future research recommendations

The present study examined the relationships between horizontal communication and its outcomes using collegiate athletes in Hong Kong, China. This approach limits the generalizability of the results, and so future research in this area should examine potential differences in these relationships by country, culture, and competitive level (e.g., professional athletes compared to collegiate athletes). A second limitation of this study is that it is correlational in nature. Causality cannot be established from the findings even though this study utilized SEM for hypothesis testing, and horizontal communication, theoretically and intuitively, plays an antecedent role in team cohesion and commitment. Therefore, in the future, scholars interested in this area are encouraged to explore the causal relationships between the relevant variables using longitudinal intervention research designs.

A third limitation arises from potential GEQ issues. The GEQ, quite similar to most measurement tools, is imperfect. In some instances,^26,44 the GEQ has been used without any measurement issues arising. Wolf et al.⁴⁴ for example, found valid or reliable scores for the four-factor structure of GEQ. However, in other instances,^45,46 structural validity concerns about the four sub-scales of the GEQ have been raised by scholars, especially when the instrument is used with younger aged participants. Both the GIT and GIS aspects of the GEQ were found to be reliable and valid in the current study, but only after the deletion of 2 GIT items and 1 GIS item. So, absent the deletion of these items, validity and reliability issues were found. Thus, despite the widespread use of the GEQ, caution should be observed when using and interpreting the results from this questionnaire.

In Hong Kong, it is very competitive and challenging to directly get into a university from high school, which leads many students to pursue an associate degree for two years prior to attending a university. As a result, most student–athletes in Hong Kong range from 18 to 24 years of age. This age range, which was present in the researchers’ study, as well as the fact that a Cantonese version of the GEQ was used to conduct the study, may help to explain why minor issues were experienced with the questionnaire. Accordingly, future studies in this area should pay extra attention to validity issues (e.g., content, concurrent, predictive, and factorial validity) that may stem from using the GEQ with younger aged participants as well as participants who require a non-English version of the GEQ.

Fourth, this study only examined horizontal communication. Communication processes with sport teams can be categorized into both vertical and horizontal communication. Vertical communication, in comparison to horizontal communication, represents “work-related communication up and down the organization hierarchy”(Postmes et al.⁶ p.227). In sport contexts, the social exchanges between athletes and coaches constitute vertical communication. Future studies should simultaneously examine the relative importance of these two distinctive types of interpersonal communication and how they directly and indirectly influence a variety of attitudinal and behavioral variables (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior, satisfaction, turnover rate, and performance) because even though vertical communication may sometimes have a stronger relationship with commitment, both forms of communication are expected to impact team member commitment levels.⁴⁷ Indeed, the extent to which athletes become committed to their team should be influenced by coach–athlete social exchanges as well as informal and socio-emotional interactions with teammates.

Conclusion

The current study investigated how four different dimensions of horizontal communication influenced team commitment through GIT and GIS aspects of team cohesion. Our results provide insights about the roles of intra-team communication among team members on team cohesion and commitment that may eventually result in better individual and team performance. It is also expected that knowledge of the relationships between teammate-to-teammate communication and its psychological consequences from the current study will be useful for coaches in the development and management of positive and constructive team cultures.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Andersen E. 21 quotes from Henry Ford on business, leadership and life, http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2013/05/31/21-quotes-from-henry-ford-on-business-leadership-and-life/ (2013, accessed 15 November 2015).

Cunningham

Eys

. Role ambiguity and intra-team communication in interdependent sport teams. J Appl Soc Psych 2007; 37: 2220–2237.

Sullivan

Feltz

. The preliminary development of the scale for effective communication in team sports (SECTS). J Appl Soc Psych 2003; 33: 1693–1715.

Monroe M. Rockets flunk team chemistry exam, http://assets.espn.go.com/premium/nba/columns/western/89627.html (1998, accessed 15 November 2015).

Ulman H. New England Patriots, San Antonio Spurs in a league of their own, www.thestar.com/sports/football/2014/12/23/new_england_patriots_san_antonio_spurs_on _a_league_of_their_own.html (2013, accessed 15 November 2015).

Postmes

Tanis

De Wit

. Communication and commitment in organizations, a social identity approach. Group Processes Intergroup Rel 2001; 4: 227–246.

Dainton

Zelley

. Applying communication theory for professional life: a practical introduction, 2nd ed. Thousand Oak, CA: SAGE Publications, 2011.

Thibaut

Kelley

. The social psychology of groups, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1959.

Tajfel

Turner

An integrative theory of social conflict. In: Austin

Worchel

(eds). The social psychology of intergroup relations, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1979, pp. 7–24.

10.

Foa

. Societal structures of the mind, Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1974.

11.

Levine

Moreland

. Progress in small group research. Annu Rev Psych 1990; 41: 585–634.

12.

Carnary

Cody

Manusov

. Interpersonal communication: a goal-based approach, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Bedford, 2003.

13.

Carron

Brawley

Widmeyer

. The development of an instrument to measure cohesion in sport teams: the group environment questionnaire. J Sport Psych 1985; 7: 244–266.

14.

Widmeyer

Brawley

Carron

. The measurement of cohesion in sports teams: the group environment questionnaire, London, ON: Sports Dynamics, 1985.

15.

Allen

Meyer

. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. J Occup Psych 1990; 63: 1–18.

16.

Scanlan

Chow

Sousa

. The development of the sport commitment questionnaire-2 (English version). Psych Sport Exer 2016; 22: 233–246.

17.

Scanlan

Carpenter

Schmidt

. An introduction to the sport commitment model. J Sport Exer Psych 2013; 15: 1–15.

18.

Meyer

Allen

. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Hum Res Manage Rev 1991; 1: 61–89.

19.

Meyer

Stanley

Herscovitch

. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. J Vocat Behav 2002; 61: 20–52.

20.

Bloom

Life at the top. In: Salmela

(ed). Great job coach!, Ottowa, ON: Potentium, 1996, pp. 139–178.

21.

Hanin

. Social psychology and sport: communication processes in top performance teams. Sport Sci Rev 1992; 1: 13–28.

22.

Sullivan

Short

. Further operationalization of intra-team communication in sports: an updated version of the scale of effective communication in team sports (sects-2). J Appl Soc Psych 2011; 41: 471–487.

23.

Smith

Arthur

Hardy

. Transformational leadership and task cohesion in sport: the mediating role of intra-team communication. Psych Sport Exer 2013; 14: 249–257.

24.

Spink

Nickel

Wilson

. Using a multilevel approach to examine the relationship between task cohesion and team task satisfaction in elite ice hockey players. Small Group Res 2005; 36: 539–554.

25.

Heuze

Raimbault

Fontayne

. Relationships between cohesion, collective efficacy, and performance in professional basketball teams: an examination of mediating effects. J Sport Sci 2006; 24: 59–68.

26.

Carron

Brawley

Widmeyer

Measurement of cohesion in sport and exercise. In: Duda

(ed). Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement, Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 1998, pp. 213–226.

27.

Papanikolaou

Voutselas

Mantis

. The effects of a psychological skills training program on the cohesion of a men’s soccer team. J Educ Pract 2012; 3: 8–20.

28.

Widmeyer

Carron

Brawley

Group cohesion in sport and exercise. In: Singer

Murphey

Tennant

(eds). Handbook of research in sport psychology, New York: Macmillan, 1993, pp. 672–692.

29.

Meyer

Allen

Smith

. Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. J Appl Psych 1993; 78: 538–551.

30.

Barrick

Bradley

Kristof-Brown

Colbert

. The moderating role of top management team interdependence: implications for real teams and working groups. Acad Manage J 2007; 50: 544–557.

31.

Pillai

Williams

. Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. J Organ Change Manage 2004; 17: 144–159.

32.

Wech

Mossholder

Steel

. Does work group cohesiveness affect individuals’ performance and organizational commitment? A cross level examination. Small Group Res 1998; 29: 472–494.

33.

Kline

. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rd ed. New York: Guilford, 2010.

34.

Sobel

Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In: Leinhard

(ed). Sociological methodology, Washington, DC: American Sociological, 1982, pp. 290–312.

35.

Ford

MacCallum

Tait

. The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: a critical review and analysis. Personnel Psych 1986; 39: 291–314.

36.

Fornell

Larcker

. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Market Res 1981; 18: 39–50.

37.

Hair

Anderson

Tatham

. Multivariate data analysis, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998.

38.

Anderson

Gerbing

. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psych Bull 1988; 103: 411–423.

39.

Nunally

Bernstein

. Psychometric theory, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

40.

Baron

Kenny

. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Personality Soc Psych 1986; 5: 1173–1182.

41.

Carron

Bray

Eys

. Team cohesion and team success in sport. J Sports Sci 2002; 20: 119–126.

42.

McDowell G. Paul McGinley my standout Ryder Cup leader, www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/golf/29442461 (2014, accessed 15 November 2015).

43.

Jenkins

. Winning formula, man management and the inner game: commonalities of success in the Ryder Cup and Super Bowl. Int J Sport Sci Coach 2015; 10: 171–184.

44.

Wolf

Eys

Sadler

. Appraisal in a team context: perceptions of cohesion predict competition importance and prospects for coping. J Sport Exer Sci 2015; 37: 489–499.

45.

Eys

Carron

Bray

. Item wording and internal consistency of a measure of cohesion: the group environment questionnaire. J Sport Exer Psych 2007; 29: 395–402.

46.

Eys

Loughhead

Bray

. Development of cohesion questionnaire for youth: the youth sport environment questionnaire. J Sport Exer Psych 2009; 31: 390–408.

47.

Mathieu

Zajac

. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psych Bull 1990; 108: 171–194.