There’s no “I” in Scotland: How a team’s identity delivers performance

When people define themselves as members of a team - say as part of the Scotland squad - this shared identity changes their psychology and behaviour. They stop acting as individuals pursuing personal goals, and instead start thinking, feeling and behaving as a group. Members become motivated to achieve shared goals, and collective success becomes their own success. This shared identity is a source of psychological support when the going gets tough.

In high pressure team situations, individuals can experience heightened self- monitoring and anxiety about potential personal failure. This can lead to “choking” so that people become hyperaware of their actions which disrupts the automaticity required for skilled performance. Just think of a player who balloons their penalty over the bar from 12 yards, failing in what should be a simple task for a professional.

However, when there is a psychological shift from the individual to the team, the focus shifts from my performance to our performance, thereby reducing self-focussed anxiety. Shared identity provides social support, such that teammates become sources of resilience.

Individual belief and self-confidence are obviously important. However, there is evidence that “collective efficacy” – belief in the group’s shared capability – is actually a stronger predictor of performance. Whatever the shortcomings of the Scotland squad, there can be little doubt that they share a strong sense of shared identity and confidence. As Head Coach Steve Clarke explained ahead of the Haiti game, “I’ve got 26 superstars here…we’ve built everything we’ve done over the last seven years on the squad, the team, everyone being together and playing their part at certain times”. These processes do not only apply to sport. Studies have shown that a shared sense of “us” is the basis for “high reliability followership” in a variety of different pressurised environments, including within military teams.

However, not all social identities are helpful for performance. International football has many examples of when a team identity has fractured into sub-groups. Both Manchester United and Liverpool players have spoken about detrimental club cliques within England’s so-called “Golden Generation”, with Neville, Beckam, Ferdinand and Rooney eating at one table, and Gerrard and Carragher at another.

The 1996 Netherlands team similarly disintegrated into sub-group splinters based on club, age and race. While shared identity can’t guarantee success, without it the team is almost certain to fail.

Team identity doesn’t emerge spontaneously but needs to be actively built and sustained. There are three key leadership behaviours which can help with this. First, leaders need to be “identity entrepreneurs” by crafting the group’s shared story (“this is who we are, and this is what we stand for”). Second, leaders should be “identity advancers” by protecting the group’s identity and reputation, particularly when others seek to threaten it. Third, leaders must be “identity embedders” to ensure the shared identity is part of how the group routinely operates, and not just a resource during times of crisis. Leaders who are perceived as “one of us” are the most influential, because they are seen as credible sources of information. In this way, leadership and power operate through groups rather than over them.

Furthermore, evidence suggests that leadership can be most effective when it is shared between those in formal roles (Head Coach, Captain) and other team members. Research in Belgium has identified four key identity leadership roles, and that these are rarely fulfilled by just one person. Indeed, teams which distribute leadership roles consistently outperform those who place the burden solely onto a captain. Task Leader(s) must define objectives and the tactics to achieve them. Motivational Leaders(s) sustain collective belief during setbacks and successes, while Social Leader(s) cultivate a positive atmosphere in and around the dressing room. Finally, External Leader(s) present the team’s identities to outside audiences (e.g. the Media), including protecting the group when it is under threat. For my money, I’d suggest that Clarke, McTominay, McGinn and Robertson (amongst others) play those roles to great effect.

Unfortunately for Scotland, having a strong sense of identity isn’t always enough to win football matches. Sometimes luck is against you, or – whisper it – the other team might actually have better players. Should the unthinkable happen and Scotland suffer defeat against Morocco on Friday, then shared identity can play another important function. Honest communication within the group (such as admitting mistakes and flagging challenges) is more likely in a group with a strong identity.

This is because the psychological safety it generates can allow for the expression of vulnerability and constructive dissent to fix problems. Moreover, teams with strong shared identities are better at attributing failure collectively rather than individually, which protects team cohesion when it is needed the most. In fact, teams that can maintain group-level explanations for setbacks recover performance levels faster.

Brazil will be shaking in their flip-flops.

Overall, performance under pressure isn’t simply about individual toughness, skill or experience (although all three are useful). Team success is a fundamentally collective phenomenon. Groups which have actively built shared identity through leadership and distributed roles possess a crucial set of resources for high stakes moments. For this Scotland squad, that work has been done. As McGinn said after beating Haiti, “We all want the one thing and that’s for the country to be successful”.

When the players cross the white line on Friday, let’s hope the team can deliver a performance they – and we - can be proud of.

Dr Fergus Neville is a senior lecturer in organisational studies at the University of St Andrews Business School