Who's On your Team?

Clarity of Roles & Goals

Great chemistry does not necessarily mean teammates like each

other, but that they are all in agreement about and understand

their roles and team goals. This may be difficult to accept for

talented players, and we see this play out on the pro level all the

time. A great example is the 2004 Los Angeles Laker team that

stocked itself up with four Hall of Famers—Gary Payton, Kobe

Bryant, Shaquille O’Neal, and Karl Malone. One could argue that

this was Kobe Bryant’s most talented team during his 20-year

career. The 2022 Los Angeles Lakers have similar problems, in

that too many stars has led to unclear roles and responsibilities.

Do you remember what happened? The 2004 Lakers were

swept by the Detroit Pistons in four games, Shaquille O’Neal left

in free agency, and Phil Jackson stepped away from the Lakers

for the first time. This is a classic example of players not having

chemistry because they could not accept their roles to achieve

the team goals. Kobe Bryant wanted to be the “alpha dog” and

resented Shaq because he didn’t have the same work ethic. They

lost sight of the main goal: winning. You see this all the time,

teams that have all the talent but none of the chemistry.

Of course, the best example of players “buying in” to a team

goal and gaining chemistry is the New England Patriots, where

time and time again they get free agents with tons of talent who

either accept their role or they get sent packing. The Patriots

also are an example of having good leadership as Bill Belichick

is explicit, up-front, regarding what he expects from his players

and what their role will be. Again and again you see talented

players who have a different, and sometimes lesser role, but

still understand and respect Belichick because he told them up

front what the expectations are—whether they like it or not. In

addition, Belichick gets more out of players who have less tal-

ent—undrafted free agents, players who were cut from other

teams—because his leadership is so strong and clear, and play-

ers respect his goals, team concept, culture, and most of all, because they want to win.

Task and Social Cohesion

Let’s look more closely at agreeing on roles and goals. With any team that you

are playing on, there will always be a balance of Social and Task Cohesion.

Social Cohesion is the degree to which the teammates’ goals are all in unison

and harmony. Cohesion occurs when goals are clear and roles are clearly defined. In

Kobe’s case, Kobe and Shaq struggled to yield to who the “go to guy” was—instead of

focusing on winning. It is possible to win with poor social cohesion, but it makes things

harder. With greater social cohesion, it makes task cohesion much more fluid.

Task Cohesion is the group’s ability to focus on the task and work towards the

same goal, regardless of chemistry. It allows for teammates to fall into their natural roles

without ego struggles as they all have the team in mind. A good coach should facilitate

this.

In the case of the championship Laker teams of the early 2000s, the team had

great task cohesion but poor social cohesion. They managed to win in spite of this, but

again, we all wonder could they have won more (and would they have enjoyed it more

with better relationships and less ego)? Also, this Laker team required the finesse of a

great coach in Phil Jackson. In his book The Last Season: A Team in Search of Its Soul,

which he wrote after leaving the Lakers, Jackson spoke of how exhausting it was (and

how childish he thought it was) managing Kobe’s and Shaq’s egos.

You can do your part by not adding more drama to the team than necessary. Phil

Jackson had to put in extra effort just to manage personalities, and any time a coach

has to do that, it is taking away from his focus of winning. If you pay attention, most

great teams don’t have “player-coach” issues as leadership and roles have been clearly

defined and the coaches are obviously supported by the owners. This same concept

applies at the high school and college levels.

The tough part about achieving good chemistry is that you simply won’t like

everyone on your team, but you’ll need to recognize the commonalities you

share—primarily your aspiration to succeed. You’ll need to be flexible in some

relationships, and in others you’ll have an easy connection. But recognizing that you

need to be a unified unit—fraught with differences of opinion, appearance, and

attitude—is crucial for your success. Having good chemistry does not mean everyone

having sing-alongs, but it does mean understanding that you all want to excel and that

you can manage and embrace the purpose that brought you together—winning.