SNA and Trust

One of the methods we chose to determine communication within the Bears is the Social
Network Analysis (SNA). This method is a good indicator of how cohesive a team is. According
to Carron Brawley and !idmeyer cohesion is a "dynamic #rocess that is reflected in the
tendency for a grou# to stick together and remain in the #ursuit of its instrumental o$%ectives
and&or for the satisfaction of the mem$ers affective needs'. SNA also #rovides information on
individuals of teams how they interact with each other and how they are integrated under four
s#ecific categories trust( friendshi#( advice( and efficacy. The s#ecific research we studied was
done $y Stacey !arner )atthew T. Bowers and )arlene A. *i+on from the ,niversity of
Te+as at Austin. They used two NCAA !omen-s $asket$all teams. They #icked four critical
times to survey all of the #artici#ants on the team. They were surveyed during the off.season
#re.season mid.season and #ost.season. SNA uses mathematical algorithms to hel# us see
unnoticed tendencies within a team with num$ers. The /uestions regarding the categories were
$etween a scale of .0000 for a failed score and 1.0000 for a #erfect score. !hat a failed score
means is that the individuals are com#letely isolated or unconnected with the team and a #erfect
score means that all the #layers and staff are highly integrated. (Team *ynamics) The surve
showed results for statements such as "2 went to this #erson for advice'( "2 consider this
teammate a friend'( "2 trust this #erson'. At the conclusion of the research the researchers found
that Team A had a much $etter overall SNA rating than Team B. The SNA num$er for each
category #rogressively increased as the season continued for Team A and although Team B
showed increases there were noticea$ly more fluctuations as well. 2t-s also worthy to #oint out
that the average ratings for Team B-s SNA were significantly lower than that of Team A-s. Team
A had a much higher trust and efficacy rating and had a winning season. Team B-s was very low
and won only 345 of their games that season. Not only does SNA show us these relationshi#s
with num$ers $ut also with gra#hs. 6ach individual #artici#ant is #laced on the $oard and arrows
are #laced wherever there is some sort of interaction or relationshi#. Team A had a much denser
gra#h with lines all over the #lace where Team B-s gra#h was hollow. (Team *ynamics)
At the conclusion of our research we find it im#ortant to tell you guys that trust and
efficacy seems to $e more im#ortant than friendshi# and advice. !e say seem $ecause we can
never make definitive statements $ecause in order for us to conclude something as factually as
that there must $emore researches done. But Team A had a cohesion rating with efficacy and
trust and had a winning season whereas Team B was far $ehind in those categories and only won
345 of their games. The mean efficacy rating was .4147 for Team A and .3844 for Team B. The
mean trust rating was .989: for Team A and .;1;1 for Team B. This is relevant to the Bears a
defensive team with trust issues on the offensive side of the $all. Communication is a huge factor
when it comes to trust. <ay Cutler needs to show his lineman that he trusts them with ver$al and
non.ver$al communication. =elling at them will do the o##osite. Offensive lines need to trust
each other when communicating where the $lock assignments are. *efenses need to
communicate to each other when the #lay starts and everyone needs to trust what they are saying.
>layers need to trust the fact that their teammates know their assignments. Communication must
occur on a foot$all field and that communication must $e trusted.
2t is our %o$ to consult the $usiness of the Chicago Bears and steer you guys in the right
direction. !e understand that this $usiness organi?ation is different $ecause it is a s#orts team.
The #rofit is generally a linear relationshi# with how many wins your team gets. The Bears have
always $een known as a defensive team so we won-t waste your time and money talking a$out
how effective the defense is. =our offense however has always $een /uestiona$le. The Bears
trio Cutler )arshall and @orte is one of the $est trios in the league. !ith an easy schedule so
far the record is #retty good $ut the Bears are not #layoff contenders yet. The offense needs to
click and we aren-t talking a$out clicking when #laying the St. Aouis Bams $ut against
household names like the Ciants @alcons and >ackers. !ith a clicking offense the Bears can
com#ete against these teams. C) <erry Angelo even said that Cutler must trust his offensive line
if the Bears will ever #lay u# to their #otential. (6S>N Chicago)There are trust issues all over the
field with the Bears. Cutler can-t trust his offensive line $ecause every other #lay he-s on his
$ack. So even if the #rotection is good he-s su$consciously thinking there-s a good chance he
will get sacked. Duarter$acks in the N@A can-t worry a$out that nor should they. They need to
read the defense and make /uick decisions. But the trust is flawed with the receivers as well.
Cutler-s receivers have a tendency to not catch the $all or $e in the wrong #lace due to running
the wrong route. Our suggestion is that you don-t try to im#rove the relationshi# $etween the
#layers $ut make the #layers $etter or get $etter ones. 2t might cost some money $ut the #lan is to
get that money $ack when your stadium is #acked dee# in the #layoffs. Better #layers have
higher efficacy ratings and therefore gain the trust of their #layers. )ore trust leads to more
winning seasons according to SNA and the study at the ,niversity of Te+as. There is no /uestion
<ay Cutler is your /uarter$ack. Eis skills are undenia$le and even though his #ersonality isn-t the
most #refera$le friendshi# and advice are not in a linear relationshi# with winning. Trust and
6fficacy are.
Annotated Bi$liogra#hy
!arner Stacy )atthew T. Bowers and )arlene A. *i+on. FTeam *ynamicsG A Social
Network >ers#ective.F Journal of Sport Management 37.1 (3013)G 4;.77.EBSCO Host. !e$. 3:
Oct. 3013. Hhtt#G&&we$.e$scohost.com.e?#ro+y1.li$.de#aul.edu&ehost&#dfviewer&#dfviewerI
sidJ8Kf31;8$.;$73.9e;K.8c04.0470;8cde;84590sessionmgr1;LvidJ:LhidJ10M.
2n this section of the %ournal researchers use Social Network Analysis to determine social
as#ects of a successful team and com#ared it to a losing team. SNA conducts surveys to
determine the im#ortance of friendshi# advice efficacy and trust. !e get to see this with
num$ers created $y algorithms and also with gra#hs that show arrows going to and from other
#layers and mem$ers of the team staff. The overall result shows how cohesive a team is under
the four categories.
FAngeloG Offense )ust Trust 6ach Other.F !e$ log comment. Espn Chicago. 6d.
)ichael C. !right. 6S>N 10 Oct. 3013. !e$. 3: Oct. 3013.
Hhtt#G&&es#n.go.com&$log&chicago&$ears&#ost&N&id&97K3779&angelo.offense.must.trust.each.
otherM.
<erry Angelo made a few comments on how the offense needs to trust each other in order
to reach their #otential. 2n #articular he was worried a$out <ay Cutler and the offensive line.
Although it is safe to say that is the $iggest #ro$lem there are more things that can $e fi+ed. The
article talks a$out how <ay needs to trust his receivers and )ike )art? Offensive coordinator
needs to $e more consistent in calling a $alanced amount of running and #assing #lays.