Exploring perceptions of performance support team effectiveness in elite sport

ABSTRACT

Elite sport organisations are increasingly recruiting diverse and sophisticated performance support teams in an attempt to optimise athlete health and performance. These multiteam systems are commonly comprised of sport medicine and sport science personnel (e.g. physiotherapists, sport scientists, strength and conditioning coaches, nutritionists, psychologists), yet the effectiveness of such teams is reliant upon more than the mere aggregate of the assembled expertise. Whilst the multidimensional nature of team effectiveness has been investigated in other domains, such research pertaining to performance support teams in elite sport is sparse. A qualitative method of enquiry was used to explore performance support team effectiveness across a range of elite sports. Four online focus groups consisting of a total of 18 participants working in English Premier League Football, Formula One, and Olympic Sports (summer and winter) were conducted, and reflexive thematic analysis was employed to analyse the data. Four overarching themes were generated which are deemed to be associated with performance support team effectiveness: team structure (composition, geographic dispersion, hierarchical arrangement, and leadership), team member attributes (role proficiency, open mindedness, adaptability, and humility), shared mental model (shared objectives, role understanding, and contextual awareness), and social capital (trust, respect, cohesion, and communication). This study provides a greater understanding of performance support team effectiveness in elite sport which has conceivable implications for future research and also professional practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Elite sport
• performance support
• team effectiveness
• teamwork

In the pursuit of competitive advantage, elite sport organisations have sought to utilise advances in sport science, medicine, and technology to optimise performance (Fletcher & Wagstaff, 2009). As such, elite athletes are now often supported by diverse multiteam systems that commonly (but not exclusively) include physiotherapists, sport scientists, strength and conditioning coaches, psychologists, nutritionists, performance analysts, and performance lifestyle advisors (Collins et al., 2013). These performance support teams have been identified to conceptually contribute to the success of elite sport organisations (De Bosscher et al., 2006). They have demonstrated the ability to positively impact at both the individual (Arnold et al., 2015; Gustafsson et al., 2008) and governance level of elite sport (Papadimitriou & Taylor, 2000). However, the effectiveness of such teams is reliant upon more than the mere aggregate of its individual parts. Indeed, Salas et al. (2018) stated that even if a team is made up of experts, it can still fail in the absence of cooperation, coordination, and communication. It has been identified that in order for performance support teams to be effective, an integrated, collaborative approach to teamwork (i.e., inter-, and transdisciplinary team working) is integral (Alfano & Collins, 2021; Rothwell et al., 2020). Inversely, siloed working has been reported to have a detrimental effect on teamwork and has the potential to foster competition and conflict between disciplinary teams (Alfano & Collins, 2021; Reid et al., 2004). Therefore, improving performance support team effectiveness in elite sport can arguably impact the performance of the individual, team, and organisation.

Organisational psychology and, in particular, multiteam systems and team effectiveness theory can provide a framework that informs common principles relevant to performance support team effectiveness in elite sport. The structure and operational demands of performance support teams reflect that of multiteam systems (defined as two or more teams that interface directly and interdependently to achieve collective goals). Such organisational teams are tightly coupled constellations of experts offering specialized skills, capabilities, and functions in challenging performance environments where objectives are considered too complex or large to be performed by a single team (Zaccaro et al., 2012). This has meant that interdependent teamwork and collaboration between teams have become critical to the effectiveness of organisations that employ multiteam systems.

Team effectiveness is an emerging area of research and theory development within organisational psychology that is concerned with 1) a team’s ability to achieve its objectives, and 2) how the team performs to achieve (or fail to achieve) the task (Mathieu et al., 2008). Most team effectiveness frameworks are underpinned by the input-process-output (I-P-O) format posited by McGrath (1964), but this has subsequently been developed by Mathieu et al. (2008) among others to an input-mediator-output (I-M-O) model (for a comprehensive review on organisational team effectiveness, see Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Inputs represent the antecedent variables (e.g., various resources available to the team) that enable or constrain the ability of team members to achieve task demands. Mediators include both team processes – behaviours amongst team members that reflect the colloquial notion of “teamwork” – and emergent states – affective, motivational, or cognitive states that emerge over time as a result of team member interactions. The mediators translate team inputs into outputs, which are the end results that teams strive to achieve (e.g., team/athlete win, member satisfaction etc). Similarly, within multiteam system literature, Shuffler et al. (2015) adopted the same format within their research framework which includes antecedents (inputs) – mediators–outcomes. Both team effectiveness and multiteam system literature provide theoretical underpinning relevant to this study.

Despite existing research highlighting the importance of teamwork and team effectiveness within sport (Alfano & Collins, 2021; Webster et al., 2017), the literature pertaining to what this is and how it is achieved has been surprisingly sparse (McEwan, 2020). In an attempt to stimulate research in this context, McEwan and Beauchamp (2014) conducted a theoretical and integrative review of teamwork behaviours in other contexts (see Collins & Durand-Bush, 2015 for a review of frameworks related to sport). This resulted in a working definition as well as a conceptual framework relevant to sport. Specifically, teamwork was defined as “a collaborative effort by team members to effectively carry out the independent and interdependent behaviours that are required to maximize a teams’ likelihood of achieving its purposes” (McEwan & Beauchamp, 2014, p. 233). Similarly, after conducting a systematic scoping review across various industries, Salcinovic et al. (2022) reported that support teams in elite sport can influence team functioning and performance through leadership styles, supportive team behaviour, communication, and performance feedback. However, whilst conceptual frameworks and research in other domains provide valuable insights for team effectiveness and teamwork in elite sport, there is a paucity of empirical research pertaining to team effectiveness of performance support teams.

Previous research has highlighted that team effectiveness mediators such as cohesion (Beal et al., 2003; Carron et al., 2002), communication (Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004; Onağ & Tepeci, 2014), shared mental models (Cruickshank & Collins, 2012; Gershgoren et al., 2016), and leadership (Fletcher & Arnold, 2011; Fransen et al., 2017) influence performance in sport. However, much of the focus of previous research has centred on sports teams (i.e., athletes and their teammates) or individual coaches (Côté & Gilbert, 2009) and failed to specifically address team effectiveness of performance support teams. Webster et al. (2017) explored the concept of team effectiveness within elite sport and found six broad themes existed, namely culture and environment, values, communication, understanding, leadership, and unique individuals. Whilst this study adds great value within a scarce body of literature, its application is limited to one sport (i.e., cricket) and the participants included were a range of players and coaches, with the only performance support team member included being psychologists. Therefore, there remains a pressing need to examine organizational-level teamwork in sport (Author, under review) to understand how diverse performance support teams operate effectively within the context of elite sport. As such, the purpose of this study was to explore the lived experiences and perceptions of team effectiveness specific to performance support teams in elite sport. In addition to contributing to the limited literature, it is believed that such research has the potential to inform and shape professional practice within elite sporting environments to elicit more effective working environments.

Methods

Research design

This study was underpinned by philosophical assumptions of ontological relativism (i.e., reality is multiple, created, and mind dependent) and epistemological interpretivism (i.e., knowledge is subjective and shaped by lived experience) (Sparkes & Smith, 2013). As such, a phenomenological study design was selected to investigate performance support team members’ experiential and lived aspects of team effectiveness in elite sport. Focus groups were chosen as the most appropriate method of data collection. Liamputtong (2011) suggested that “focus group interviews allow group dynamics to help the researcher capture shared experiences, accessing elements other methods may not be able to reach” (p. 4). Focus groups have been used to study a myriad of group behavioural topics including group composition, cohesion, resilience, productivity, and leadership (Morgan et al., 2013), and therefore appear appropriate for exploring shared team effectiveness experiences.

Participants

Purposive sampling was used to ensure that the experiences and perspectives collected were from a contextually relevant sample. The sample (n = 18) included individuals over the age of 18 years who were currently supporting elite athletes/sport teams. The definition of “elite sport” was determined using the classification framework provided by McKay et al. (2021). Part of the inclusion criteria was that the participants had to be working with either elite/international (i.e., tier 4) or world class athletes (i.e., tier 5). Four focus groups were conducted and each one was comprised of performance support team members from an English Premier League football team (n = 4), Formula One racing team (n = 4), and a Summer (n = 5) and Winter (n = 5) Olympic sport. Participants represented a range of roles including physiotherapists (n = 4), psychologists (n = 3), nutritionists (n = 3), strength and conditioning coaches (n = 4), and a sport scientist (n = 1), physiologist (n = 1), performance analyst (n = 1), and performance lifestyle advisor (n = 1). Thirteen participants were male and five were female, with ages ranging from 29 to 44 years (M = 34.1, SD = 4.6). The participants had been working within elite sport organisations for between 1 and 20 years (M = 9.8, SD = 4.2). Where quotations have been used, information pertaining to the role of the participant and the sport they represented has been cited – namely, Premier League team (PL), Formula One (F1), summer (SO) and winter (WO) Olympic sports.

Owing to the subjective and interpretive nature of this study, it was deemed inappropriate to use sample size or saturation (data, thematic, and/or code) in isolation to conclude data collection (Braun & Clarke, 2021b). As suggested by Braun and Clarke (2021b), a pragmatic approach to determining sample size was used within this study. Specifically, a combination of data adequacy (i.e., richness and complexity) and adherence to recommended sample size were used to conclude data collection. It was deemed that four focus groups (with a total of 18 participants) within this study was sufficient to fulfil both adequacy and conformity to sample size recommendations. Indeed, it has been reported from a parallel focus group study that four focus groups were sufficient for code saturation (94% of all codes and 96% of high prevalence codes were identified; Hennink et al., 2019). This is also in line with recommendations for synchronous online focus groups, which suggest that three to five groups (Forrestal et al., 2015) comprising three to four participants (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2017) is adequate.

Procedure

Following institutional ethical approval, managers of performance support teams (e.g., head of performance support, head of physical performance, director of sports coaching) were contacted via email or social media messaging to initially gauge interest in the study. The performance support team manager helped facilitate the study by sharing the study details and providing contact details for all participants. Homogenous focus groups (i.e., groups comprising members from the same team), were used to promote greater cooperation and willingness to communicate and lessen the likelihood of conflict among group members (Forsyth, 2018). Individuals who had formal managerial responsibilities within the performance support team were excluded in order to limit the potential influence of social power (Forsyth, 2018). Once a mutually agreed date and time had been confirmed, the participants received an information sheet, an accompanying informed consent and participant demographic form and a digital meeting request. Participant demographic information was collected at the same time as informed consent via a separate document. In accordance with institutional guidance, all online focus groups were conducted on Microsoft Teams at a time and date that was convenient for all participants. Similar to in-person focus groups, synchronous online focus groups are characterised by real-time discussions. Whilst the use of online focus groups was primarily used to mitigate safety concerns surrounding Covid-19, it also provided a solution to overcome time and financial constraints, geographical dispersion, and accessibility to hard-to-reach participants.

Focus group guide

A semi-structured focus group guide was used to facilitate discussion in an attempt to answer the research question (Gill et al., 2008). The guide was constructed using knowledge gleaned from previous team effectiveness literature and the authors’ first-hand experiences of working within performance support teams. The interview guide was piloted on support team members from an elite (category 1) Premier League football academy, which included physiotherapists (n = 2), a strength and conditioning coach (n = 1), a psychologist (n = 1), and a player care manager (n = 1). Feedback led to structural and content refinements to enhance the efficacy of the interview guide. For example, after conducting the pilot study, less effort was made exploring what the participants thought team effectiveness was and more attention was focused on identifying the contributing factors to team effectiveness.

The focus group guide was comprised of four main sections. Section one aimed to establish participant understanding and perceptions of performance support teams and the role they play within elite sport organisations. This was an opportunity to build rapport, understand the context of each group, and recognize any preconceptions and beliefs held by the participants (e.g., how important is performance support team effectiveness in achieving organisational objectives?). Section two asked questions pertaining to the structure and composition of the team and its potential ability to influence effectiveness (e.g., does team composition influence effectiveness?). Section three explored the perceived processes and emergent states that influence performance support team effectiveness (e.g., can you tell me what you believe to be the key contributors to team effectiveness?). The interview guide concluded with section four, where participants were asked to identify the most significant promoters and barriers to performance support team effectiveness in elite sport (e.g., what is the single most important promoter and the biggest barrier to achieving effectiveness within elite sport?). In an attempt to ensure all relevant information had been collected, participants were asked if they wanted to revisit any topics and were given the opportunity to highlight any pertinent areas they believed had not been discussed.

Data analysis

All focus groups were digitally recorded in their entirety using Microsoft Teams. The interviews lasted between 57–94 minutes (M = 75.0, SD = 17.4), with each transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were imported and analysed using QSR NVivo Version 12. Reflexive thematic analysis was viewed as the most appropriate method of data analysis. Reflexive TA procedures reflect the values of a qualitative paradigm, centring on researcher subjectivity, organic and recursive coding processes, and the importance of deep reflection (Braun & Clarke, 2019). An inductive analytical process was employed whereby semantic coding facilitated the identification and translation of participant responses. Within reflexive TA, the coding process requires the researcher to immerse themselves in the data whereby reading, reflecting, and questioning is integral to theme development. Themes are the analytical output of coding and are organised summaries of a shared topic that collectively form a comprehensive picture of the participants experiences (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Within this study, themes were conceptualised as topics that shared meaning and were depicted throughout this study using direct quotations. Overarching themes have been used as an umbrella concept that embraces a number of themes (i.e., grouping of themes).

As recommended by Braun and Clarke (2021a), a six-phase process for data engagement, coding, and theme development was used during this study: 1) data familiarisation and writing of notes (i.e., the process of transcribing the data provided the time and opportunity to fully understand the data, whilst making notes); 2) systematic data coding (e.g., within this study, “no ego” was a theme repeatedly mentioned which was determined to mean an individual’s ability to demonstrate humility and was therefore coded as such); 3) generating initial themes from coded and collated data (e.g., themes and overarching themes related to varying organisational, team, and individual attributes were generated); 4) developing and reviewing themes (e.g., utilisation of experienced supervisor and co-researcher served as a means of discussing and developing themes); 5) refining, defining, and naming themes; and 6) writing the report. Whilst the aforementioned phases have been depicted as a linear and prescriptive process, the reality is that the six phases were somewhat blended together and the analytical process was increasingly recursive. Data analysis within this study was conducted by one researcher, which has been described as “desirable” for reflexive TA (Braun & Clarke, 2021a).

Whilst this study employed inductive procedures, it is acknowledged that researchers do not exist in a theoretical vacuum and therefore deductive reasoning played a role in this study. More specifically, the focus group guide was designed using previous team effectiveness literature which is likely to have influenced the themes within this study. In addition, the primary researcher’s experience of working within performance support teams in elite sport may have influenced critical thinking and decision making when forming themes. This is common in the analysis of qualitative data with Gibbs (2007) noting that qualitative analysis is guided and framed by pre-existing ideas and concepts.

Methodological integrity

Although it is acknowledged that not all universally presented criteria are applicable to all forms of research, this study endeavoured to fulfil the 15-point checklist outlined by Braun and Clarke (2021). The integrity of this study has been evaluated in relation to the composite processes identified by Levitt et al. (2017), namely fidelity (e.g., adequate data, perspective management in data collection and analysis, and groundedness) and utility (e.g., contextualisation, catalyst for insight, meaning contributions, and coherence).

Data adequacy and therefore the fidelity of the study was augmented by the highly credible, rich data collected from elite and world class sports, as well as the pragmatic approach to data saturation, whereby within-group and across-group saturation (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009) was targeted, but not at the expense of satisfying minimum sample size recommendations. To aid in this process, the focus group moderator followed the focus group guide consistently and probed responses to questions but did not introduce any information learned in previous focus groups as one typically would in inductive qualitative research (Guest et al., 2017). Throughout the study, text exemplars have been used to intimately depict the themes (Ponterotto, 2006). This provides original accounts from the participants on the phenomenon – this, alongside thematic descriptions, provides the reader with a deep, contextual, and authentic narrative which adds to the groundedness of the study (Levitt et al., 2021).

The fidelity of this study was enhanced by acknowledging researcher situatedness (i.e., subjectivity). The focus group moderator within this study has been employed within elite sport organisations for over 10 years and has held roles within the performance support team including that of sport scientist, strength and conditioning coach, and head of sport science and medicine, which served as a catalyst for insight and enhanced contextualisation. However, in accordance with Braun and Clarke (2022), to ensure quality throughout the analysis and to mitigate any bias, a number of strategies were employed. Firstly, there was sufficient time devoted to embracing and exploring the data before moving to the organic and recursive coding processes, which allowed for a deeper understanding of the data. Secondly, the primary researcher used reflexive journaling to record their insights and analytical developments, providing critical reflection upon the research process. Finally, the primary researcher worked with an experienced supervisor and co-researchers to help review data for quality and accuracy, discuss initial analytic observations, and evaluate the draft of analysis.

Results

Using a combination of participant responses and direct quotations, a description of performance support teams in elite sport was developed. Such teams have been characterised as a group of individuals who 1) possess diverse perspectives, skillsets, and areas of expertise, 2) work collaboratively to optimise athlete(s) performance and 3) exist to collectively serve a single purpose (i.e., help win competitions, championships, medals). As such, the authors propose the following working definition: “a team that comprises individuals from diverse perspectives, skillsets, and areas of expertise who work collaboratively to optimise athlete(s) performance in order to achieve an overarching objective”.

Characteristics of performance support team effectiveness

Participant responses have been used to better understand the experiences and perceptions of team effectiveness specific to performance support teams in elite sport. Four overarching themes were identified through reflexive TA: team structure (composition, geographic dispersion, hierarchical arrangement, and leadership), team member attributes (role proficiency, open mindedness, adaptability, and humility), shared mental model (shared objectives, role understanding, and contextual awareness), and social capital (trust, respect, cohesion, and communication).

Team structure

Team structure refers to the physical and organisational dispositions that may influence effectiveness of the performance support team within elite sport. This characteristic consisted of four higher-order themes: composition, geographic dispersion, hierarchy, and leadership (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Perceived characteristics of performance support team effectiveness in elite sport: team.

Composition

When discussing the impact of composition on effectiveness, it was evident that the size of the team and cultural diversity were perceived to be significant factors. It was commonly stated that in order for a performance support team to be effective, it must have enough capacity to deliver on the outcome; however, “as capacity increases, you increase the chance of there being more noise and the unintended ineffectiveness that comes from greater numbers” (psychologist, F1). Although it was highlighted that increasingly larger teams possess the potential for greater complexity, conflict, and misalignment, it was the belief of several participants that role understanding, and communication can serve as a potential antidote to such negative consequences.

The composition of performance support teams is by nature functionally diverse; however, when asked about the impact of cultural diversity on effectiveness, all focus groups agreed that a culturally diverse team was important. It was assumed that having diversity within “skill sets, personality types, gender, ethnicity etc [provides] different ways of viewing a situation and looking at it in a different way creates new opportunities to find new answers” (psychologist, F1). Whilst it is evident that cultural diversity was valued highly amongst the participants, it was apparent that a balance of both cultural diversity and homogeneity in other factors contributed to performance support team effectiveness. One participant acknowledged that most team members were “inadvertently quite similar, in that we’re all individuals that have been through higher education”. This was viewed to “probably help sometimes with our ability to work with each other and challenge each other constructively” (physiologist, SO). Similarly, one participant highlighted the benefits of team members and athletes sharing cultural characteristics, quoting that, “you can get certain athletes who build a relationship with a practitioner, maybe because they share that sense of background or experience, and they have that empathy with them” (nutritionist, SO).

Geographic dispersion

It was established that performance support teams may be required to work in close physical proximity (centralised), geographically dispersed (decentralised), or a combination of the two (i.e., centralised for camps and competitions only). In addition, it was noted that due to COVID-19 restrictions, some teams were required to work more remotely than previously expected. Although it was perceived that remote meetings (e.g., via video conference platforms such as Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or Skype) are “an effective way to get groups together and actually get things done” (strength & conditioning coach, SO), there was an overriding consensus that teams who work in close physical proximity experience enhanced cohesion and creativity, and were more willing to have difficult conversations with team members. One participant added, “if you’re in the same building, you do get to have the sort of conversations that just happen organically as opposed to this sort of situation where we’ve got an agreed meeting on Teams” (strength & conditioning coach, SO).

Hierarchical arrangement

There was a strong belief that a top-down leadership approach (i.e., team leader makes decisions which then filters through hierarchical structure) was detrimental to performance support team effectiveness. The preferred organisational structure was more horizontal (i.e., non-hierarchical) with responsibility and accountability being distributed evenly. One participant reflected upon the different hierarchical systems they had worked within and stated:

We were all in this ecosystem together and it didn’t matter how long you’d been there or who you were or what your job title was, we were all on the same level. So instead of that ladder approach, it was a circle approach, and we could all feed in and that was very successful. … Whereas I think sometimes when you’ve got that top-down approach, you might not be comfortable to challenge. (nutritionist, F1)

One commonality across the majority of focus groups was the presence of a designated lead person who gathered, filtered, and distributed the appropriate information, with one participant stating that “streamlining it through someone works effectively” (psychologist, SO).

Leadership

Leadership was perceived as being a fundamental mechanism to achieving performance support team effectiveness, with three sub-themes being identified. Firstly, it was apparent that a leader was responsible for providing “a vision to guide people in the right way”, and to identify the priorities of the programme. Secondly, a large emphasis was placed on the leader to facilitate an environment that encouraged good working relationships, team cohesion and supported “autonomy, mastery, and purpose for people in the team”. Thirdly, it was identified that a leader possesses the ability to influence the team’s culture through their actions.

Team member attributes

A large proportion of participant discussions were focused on the contribution of individuals’ knowledge, skills, and attributes. Whilst employing technically-capable individuals remains a pre-requisite, a number of participants highlighted the importance of “just being a good person”. This dimension captures both the professional and interpersonal knowledge in the four themes: role proficiency, open mindedness, adaptability, and humility (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Perceived characteristics of performance support team effectiveness in elite sport: team member attributes.

Role proficiency

Participants believed they were primarily “employed because technically we’re good at our jobs and our knowledge is pretty high in our disciplines” (performance analyst, WO). It was suggested by one participant that qualifications and accreditations alone are insufficient means of demonstrating role proficiency. Rather, it was believed that an individual’s ability to demonstrate impact on performance was of greater importance. It was also apparent that role proficiency had the ability to impact relationships within the team. One participant stated that, “I think you get on best and you work best with those people that you see as good practitioners” (strength & conditioning coach, PL). Another suggested that “being a half decent human being doesn’t mediate for being ineffective in their role, especially if it’s something that crosses over and impacts you” (strength & conditioning coach, WO).

Open Mindedness

This theme represents the willingness and ability to consider new or different ideas and opinions. One participant claimed that the most significant promoter of performance support team effectiveness was “being willing and able to understand someone” (nutritionist, PL). In a constantly evolving field where situations and environments are continually changing, there is a “need to self-reflect on our position, our thoughts, our input … being able to move on our standpoint, able to evolve” (psychologist, SO). Participants emphasised that team members should avoid adopting a “static” or “fixed” approach within their role. Instead, it was described that team members should “be innovative, and willing to constantly look for other things … think outside the box and look to improve the environment and yourself, but also the team you function within” (physiotherapist, PL). It was believed that teams with open-minded members operated in “the most effective way” and were more likely to “achieve more” and “be more successful”.

Adaptability

It was deemed crucial for performance support team members to be able to reflect, react, and “have the versatility to be able to adapt in different situations” (physiotherapist, PL). Team members identified the importance of physically adapting to challenges within an environment that is inherently fast paced (i.e., a change in the schedule at short notice). Another element of adaptability refers to how team members adjust to different and sometimes difficult personalities. It was suggested that team members “need to be adaptable and work with loads of different people”. When discussing how they work with different head coaches, one participant quoted:

They have different philosophies and approaches, and some are very open, and some tend to be real gatekeepers. So, we have to flex and duck and dive and try and work with them, find a way in. You’ll work really well with one event group this way, but it has to be different with another, and that’s just dependent on the person … at times we’ve had to try and navigate personalities within those roles in order to deliver the job effectively and connect with the project. (psychologist, SO)

Humility

The term humility was chosen to represent the absence of “ego”. A high proportion of participants in this study perceived that team members with egos were the single biggest barrier to achieving performance support team effectiveness. An individual identified as having an ego was “someone that is very much just centred on themselves and their own outcomes” (physiotherapist, PL). Inversely, being humble was identified as the willingness to help the team and accept that success is not down to anyone individual, but rather the collective contribution of the team. The acceptance that individuals may “play a big role or small role or no role at all” (psychologist, SO). Another stated that it’s about “listening to what’s going on in the room and accepting the fact that other people’s roles may become a priority before yours” (nutritionist, SO).

Shared mental models

Shared mental models refer to the knowledge held by team members that form explanations and expectations that facilitate the coordinative actions required to achieve the collective task. This characteristic consisted of three higher-order themes, namely shared objectives, role understanding, and contextual awareness (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Perceived characteristics of performance support team effectiveness in elite sport: shared mental model.

Shared objectives

The importance of understanding the overall team objective was highlighted during all focus group discussions and its significance was emphasised when several participants perceived that a lack of clarity surrounding team outcome was a significant barrier to achieving performance support team effectiveness. “Everyone knows that the end goal for all of us is to win [a competitive event]… so everything we do must be geared towards helping the team to win” (strength & conditioning coach, PL). It was also highlighted that each discipline would have its own outcomes that collectively contribute to the organisation’s overall goal. One participant stated the importance of understanding the different departments objectives, which in turn allowed for better interdisciplinary working:

Every single member of that [performance support team] understood what the journey and the vision of the organisation was. I could recite to you now what our vision was at [team] … I could tell you what the strength & conditioning vision was. I could tell you what the physios’ vision was, I knew it all. (nutritionist, F1)

Although evaluating the effectiveness of teams was highlighted as important, no common criteria or strategy existed between focus groups. There was, however, agreement that evaluating performance support team effectiveness is multifaceted. A range of suggestions were cited, including the outcome of the sporting team/athlete, achievement of departmental and individual key performance indicators, team member satisfaction, and staff retention.

Role understanding

This construct referred to an individuals’ understanding of their own roles and responsibilities as well as their understanding of others’ roles and responsibilities within the performance support team. It was believed that having clearly defined roles and responsibilities helps team members understand what they are required to do and how that subsequently impacts performance on a wider scale. Without this understanding, it was claimed that “people can either shirk responsibility or they are unaware of what they’re meant to be doing” (strength & conditioning coach, WO). It was clear that understanding other people’s roles and responsibilities is an antecedent for collaborative, interdisciplinary teamwork and also allows for team members to “cover” one another when required (i.e., backing up). Shared understanding of objectives and roles were inherently connected, with one participant claiming, “I think if you haven’t got that [objective] clarity initially then it’s really hard to have clearly defined roles and responsibilities on an individual level” (performance lifestyle advisor, WO).

Contextual awareness

Although many performance support teams in elite sport share core characteristics, they invariably operate differently in relation to their unique context. It was perceived that in order for an individual or team to be effective, they must understand and operate within the contextual boundaries of that particular environment. One participant stated that:

I think it’s very dependent on the culture of the sport, the organisation, the club that you’re at. It’s not because one culture is better or worse, or right or wrong, or anything like that, but [they] just systemically operate very differently … they’re very different to work in, culturally, environmentally, and systemically. (psychologist, WO)

Having an appreciation of the environmental context (i.e., “philosophy”, “how things are done”, “difficult personalities”, etc), enables team members to connect with people and engage in processes to effectively operate within their role. One participant highlighted the benefit of understanding and engaging with “the language of the sport to link what you do to performance” (psychologist, WO). It is suggested that higher contextual awareness can enhance connection, relatedness, and empathy.

Social capital

Social capital refers to the existence of high-quality interactions and relationships within teams. Effective relationships were identified as a significant promoter of performance support team effectiveness within elite sport, with one participant stating, “one of the major parts of a [performance support team] is having those effective relationships” (physiologist, SO). This dimension consisted of four themes, namely trust, respect, team cohesion and communication (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Perceived characteristics of performance support team effectiveness in elite sport: social capital.

Trust

When asked what the single biggest promoter and barrier to performance support team effectiveness was, several participants responded “trust” and “lack of trust” respectively. It was claimed that high levels of trust were associated with team members feeling more valued and motivated, which was perceived to result in higher productivity and longevity in their role. A lack of trust was associated with impaired relationships, concerns around confidentiality, and an unwillingness to share ideas or speak up in meetings. It was highlighted that the presence of trust contributes to psychologically safe environments, where team members were more inclined to be honest, challenge one another, and collaborate to a higher level. One participant claimed:

That we’ve all got to trust each other so we can challenge each other in a really productive way, because I think that’s how we get the most out of each other … I think without trust and respect, challenge becomes conflict. (physiologist, SO)

Respect

Respect was believed to be an important feature, with one participant reporting that a lack of respect was the single biggest barrier to achieving team effectiveness. Respect was primarily based upon the perceived value and level of contribution a team member offered. Respect amongst team members, as well as between team members and athletes, must exist in order for effectiveness to be achieved. “If we don’t have that respect then that has a knock-on effect on subsequent interactions, communications, and how cohesive the team is” (physiotherapist, PL). Therefore, mutual respect amongst team members is perceived to influence working relationships and, ultimately, the performance of the performance support team. Inversely, the consequences associated with a lack of respect were reported to negatively impact communication, increase the likelihood of conflict, and have a detrimental impact on the working environment.

Cohesion

Both task and social cohesion were perceived to be fundamental in achieving performance support team effectiveness, but for different reasons. When considering the importance of task and social cohesion one participant stated that, “[social] cohesion is a bonus. It certainly makes your job more pleasurable … but ultimately, as long as you have task cohesion and you remain professional and respectful to each other, I don’t think we need it [social cohesion]” (psychologist, WO). However, social cohesion was claimed to enhance relationships and facilitate a more pleasant working environment, which was believed to influence productivity and staff retention. One participant stated,

I’ve been in teams where task cohesion is reasonable and [social] cohesion is really, really low, but what that actually did to me as a person, it affected my ability to do the task and also affected me individually, well-being wise. (performance lifestyle advisor, WO)

Thus, whilst social cohesion may contribute to effectiveness, it was stated that it shouldn’t compromise individuals’ ability to constructively challenge each other and remain task focused.

Communication

Communication refers to the multidirectional interactions that occur between team members and other key stakeholders. Numerous participants identified communication and lack of communication as the single biggest promoter and barrier to performance support team effectiveness, respectively. It was believed that a team could possess “all the best people from a skill point of view, but if they can’t communicate it’s pointless” (physiotherapist, SO). Effective communication was identified as being clear, honest, and transparent. It was suggested that as team size increased, so did the importance of effective communication. One participant claimed that “with more parts in a system, it is even more important that the lines of communication are transparent and clear and also concise” (strength & conditioning coach, PL). It was identified that multiple methods of communication are used by performance support teams in elite sport and that the mode of communication should reflect the objective and nature of the intended interaction (e.g., digital forms of communication such as email or instant messaging services may be preferred when sharing logistical information; in-person discussions may be more appropriate when attempting to provide feedback or solve performance-related problems).

Knowledge sharing is considered to be a key component of communication for performance support teams in elite sport. Due to the often fast paced, highly stressful nature of elite sport, it was deemed crucial that team members collect, interpret, and communicate relevant information quickly whilst being “impartial and professional and able to impart the correct information in a calm manner” (physiologist, SO). Knowledge sharing forms part of collaborative working whereby individuals share their professional knowledge and experiences in order to solve performance problems. Collaboration in the form of “crossover conversations” allow team members from multiple disciplines to discuss relevant topics and make joint decisions. One participant stated that “the most effective teams aren’t subject specific, but actually work across subjects to achieve an outcome” (psychologist, F1). It was said that such collaboration “enhances the chances of reaching the goal in which you’re wanting to achieve … it helps accelerate learning, reduce the trial-and-error element, and increases the success of interventions” (physiologist, SO).

Discussion

The current study is in congruence with previous sporting literature (Alfano & Collins, 2021; Rothwell et al., 2020) which highlights the importance of effective team working in elite sport. However, this study extends current understanding by 1) providing a working definition of performance support teams in elite sport and 2) characterising the constructs that are perceived to influence their effectiveness. The four overarching themes of performance support team effectiveness identified in this study are team structure, team member attributes, shared mental models, and social capital.

The first overarching theme highlighted within this study was team structure which consisted of four themes including composition, geographical dispersion, organisational arrangement, and leadership. In reference to previous team effectiveness frameworks, this theme is akin to internal inputs – that is, the size, structure, and design of the team (Kozlowski & Bell, 2015). The two key elements of team composition included team size and cultural diversity. In line with previous organisational and sporting research, both of these elements required balance (Kozlowski & Bell, 2013; Reid et al., 2004). Namely, participants reported that teams require enough human resource to fulfil the operational demands, but increasingly larger teams possess the potential for complexity, conflict, and misalignment which supports existing organisational and sporting literature (Kozlowski & Bell, 2013; Reid et al., 2004). Despite some previous studies suggesting an optimal team size (Reid et al., 2004), the findings suggested that team composition would be contingent on the context in which the team operates. Similarly, whilst greater cultural diversity offers the opportunity for differing perspectives, experiences, and beliefs, the extent of team member diversity should be considered alongside homogeneity, which has been found to enhance team member compatibility and associated team outcomes (Cunningham, 2009; Reid et al., 2004).

Regarding geographical dispersion, findings from this study reflect that of previous research where it was reported that geographically dispersed teams often experienced greater difficulty in creating a team atmosphere, communicating, retaining contextual information, building trust, and optimising team member coordination (Fletcher & Arnold, 2011; Reid et al., 2004; Zaccaro et al., 2012). However, within this study, it was perceived that time spent in camp, on tour, or at tournaments (i.e., temporarily centralised) provided an opportunity to build and maintain better relationships with team members who typically work in decentralised environments. Whilst flatter, more matrixed organisational structures have been found to be relevant within other organisational settings (Shuffler et al., 2015), it has not been explicitly explored within performance support teams. This study suggests that such an organisational structure helps distribute responsibility evenly and facilitates all team members feeling equally valued. Within the hierarchical arrangement, the role of the leader was found to be significant in facilitating an effective environment, providing a vision, and role modelling appropriate behaviours. Whilst this is in congruence with Fletcher and Arnold’s (2011) work which reported that performance directors can influence performance through vision (i.e., ultimate aspirations), operations (i.e., management of logistics), people (i.e., leadership of individuals), and culture (i.e., shared beliefs and expectations within the team), this study offers the perspective of the team members and not that of the leader.

The second overarching theme is centred around the individual-level attributes possessed by team members. The first sub-theme identified within the current study was termed role proficiency and is akin to the knowledge, skills, and abilities referenced within existing organisational literature (Kozlowski & Bell, 2013) and also that of professional knowledge within coaching effectiveness literature (Côté & Gilbert, 2009). Interestingly, proficiency was determined by level of impact on performance and not solely on possessing the requisite qualifications and/or experience. It was interpreted that “good people” within the context of this study translated into three key attributes – namely, open mindedness, adaptability, and humility. These findings in part reflect the component of intrapersonal knowledge in coach effectiveness literature, which states that effective outcomes rest not only on role proficiency and professional knowledge, but also on constant introspection, review, and revisions of one’s practice (Côté & Gilbert, 2009). Moreover, aside from role proficiency, the dimension of team member attributes is somewhat reflected within the concept of organisational citizenship behaviour, which has been defined as “individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization” (Organ et al., 2006, p. 8). In particular, helping behaviours (i.e., aiding others with organisationally relevant problems) and civic duty (i.e., maintaining awareness and involvement in the politics within the workplace) appear most pertinent within this context.

Within this study, trust was perceived to be an indispensable construct, which is in line with previous team effectiveness research within elite sport where it was also reported that trust (or lack thereof) can impact relationships, communication, and collective efficacy (Webster et al., 2017). From the findings in this study, it was evident that the construct of social capital significantly contributed to psychological safety, which is believed to occur when team members demonstrate mutual respect and trust for each other, which leads to the team feeling safe in interpersonal risk-taking, such as asking for help or seeking feedback from others (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Whilst psychological safety continues to attract empirical attention, it is the authors’ belief that this study is the first to apply the construct within the context of performance support teams in elite sport. With regards to cohesion, this study extends beyond the positive impact of cohesion at the athlete level (see Carron et al., 2002; Beal et al., 2003 for meta-analytical reviews), and reveals that (task) cohesion is essential for performance support teams to achieve their objectives and can enhance the working environment and contribute to productivity and staff retention. Findings from this study suggest that the absence of social capital can contribute to siloed working, conflict, and toxic working environments.

Communication has been widely cited as a crucial component of teamwork and team effectiveness in both sporting research (Onağ & Tepeci, 2014; Webster et al., 2017) and conceptual team frameworks in sport (Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004; McEwan & Beauchamp, 2014). The high value placed on communication is also reflected in coach effectiveness literature, which highlights the importance of effective and versatile interpersonal skills that are relevant to the environmental context (Côté & Gilbert, 2009). Whilst this study aligns with much of the previous literature, it offers slightly more depth around what effective interactions involve (i.e., open, honest, transparent, and impartial), why communication is important to performance support teams (i.e., knowledge sharing that contributes to shared understanding and decision making) and how these teams interact (i.e., multimodality peer exchanges). Whilst the present study identified the role of peer exchange in knowledge sharing, Werner and Dickson (2018) identified three further channels which included observing/imitating (i.e., social learning), labour mobility (i.e., staff rotation), and knowledge brokers (i.e., well respected and experienced individuals who impart their knowledge to peers). Arguably, these channels of knowledge sharing exist within the context of performance support teams but, interestingly, were not identified by the participants in this study.

The fourth overarching theme, shared mental model, comprises constructs that have previously been categorised as cognitive emergent states in multiteam systems literature (Shuffler et al., 2015). Within the current study, a shared understanding of the team objective/s and clarity of team member roles was reported to be critical to effectiveness, which is supported by previous team effectiveness research in sport (Alfano & Collins, 2021; Webster et al., 2017). Whilst shared mental models have previously been associated with intra-team cohesion, coordination, and performance (Alfano & Collins, 2021; Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004), this study adds that shared mental models directly facilitate inter-team collaboration. In addition, it is accepted that the shared understanding of values, expectations, and behaviours within teams shape its culture (Cruickshank & Collins, 2012), which further highlights the role of contextual awareness for individuals and teams alike to be effective within these environments.

This study aimed to advance understanding of team effectiveness within the context of performance support teams in elite sport. In response to two limitations highlighted by Webster et al. (2017), the present research 1) extends beyond the investigation of a singular sport and 2) explores the perceptions and lived experiences of a wide range of support staff from a range of elite sports. Whilst the level of participants and variety of sports included in this study is a strength, it is prudent to consider the limitations associated with the research. Firstly, all focus groups were conducted with United Kingdom based participants and, as such, findings from this study may not necessarily generalize to non-UK sporting environments. Secondly, despite the level of social interaction and data richness being reported as similar between face-to-face and online focus groups (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2017), there are evident limitations associated with online focus groups which include reduced group interaction, immediacy, and communication (compared to face-to-face). In addition, this method possesses the potential for technical difficulties to cause disruption and can reduce the ability of the interviewer to observe subtle visual, non-verbal cues. Lastly, when exploring a complex phenomenon such as team effectiveness, it could be argued that one off focus group interviews in isolation are reductionistic and may limit the complete lived experience of participants and negate the influence of temporal team dynamics (Sparkes & Smith, 2013). As such, in situ observations of teams within elite sport organisations could be used in future to minimise the reliance of participant recall and offer a more comprehensive conceptualisation of the phenomenon and the address the influence of temporal dynamics (Webster et al., 2017). Therefore, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon, future investigations may wish to adopt longitudinal methodologies to address temporal dynamics associated with team effectiveness. It may also be prudent to extend this research by 1) exploring how leaders of performance support teams influence and operationalise team effectiveness in elite sport organisations, 2) developing a diagnostic tool that assesses the perceived effectiveness of such teams and 3) examining the relationship between team effectiveness and other primary outcomes in elite sport (McGuire et al., 2023).

Conclusion

Previous research has highlighted the importance of performance support teams in elite sport (Alfano & Collins, 2021; Cruickshank & Collins, 2012) and the significance of team effectiveness (Webster et al., 2017). The present study builds upon this research by 1) offering a novel working definition of performance support teams in elite sport and 2) providing a greater understanding of the range of influences that are perceived to impact team effectiveness within these specific organisational teams. The findings from the present study can aid in the enhancement of team effectiveness through the recruitment process, team training interventions, simulation training, and review-type activities (McEwan et al., 2017). For example, the findings from this study may help with structuring a department (considering size, functional/cultural composition, and hierarchical arrangement), recruiting team members (based upon interpersonal compatibility and demonstrable skills opposed to solely knowledge, skills, and abilities), and enhancing team shared understanding (clarity on collective goals, individuals’ roles and responsibilities, and environmental norms). Taken together, this research provides further evidence that collaboration amongst support teams can substantively influence organisational functioning in elite sport.

Highlights

• Performance support teams in elite sport provide diverse perspectives, expertise and skill sets to ensure the athlete/team can perform optimally and achieve overarching objectives.

• Performance support team effectiveness is dependent on team structure, team member attributes, shared mental models and social capital.

• It is recommended that future research explores how performance support team effectiveness can be facilitated through leadership.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The author(s) report there are no competing interests to declare.