The reinforcing loop R1 (see Figure 7) an increase in team performance generally brings about in members a sense of satisfaction in relation

n to the team outcomes and situation (Costa, 2000). This satisfaction can lead to a higher commitment of members to the team training, which reinforces, even more, the outcomes of the team. Besides this, the balancing loop B1- suggests that a decrease in the team performance may increase the perceived need of the team to improve or change, creating the sense that the engagement in team training is necessary in order to improve the team performance. The difference between the actual performance (represented by the variable team performance) and the desired performance goal generates a gap that allows the team to assess its need to improve or change in order to reach its goal. Therefore, as team performance rises, the performance gap tends to decrease given that desired performance goal (the objective of the team) is exogenous and does not change along the project execution, leading to a decrease in the engagement of the team in team training. The benefits created by team training towards team competencies and team processes are thus declined, leading eventually to inferior results. However, once the team performance decreases, the performance gap will increase, making the system work in an opposite direction in an attempt to restore the team performance. In other words, as a team performance rises, team members level of efforts towards goal will increase and more commit to engage in team training. Access to training has been shown to differentiate higher performing teams from other teams (Sundstrom et al. 1990). Cohen (1994) explained that team training enables team members to develop the knowledge required to contribute to the organizational performance.

Figure 1 Reinforcing & Balancing Loops, R1 & B1 According to Tannenbaum et al. (1992) model, they view training as having a direct effect on team competencies as well as the team processes (R2; see Figure 8). Training on team processes, e.g. communication and co-ordination result in improved team performance (Lassiter et al., 1990).

Figure 2 Reinforcing & Balancing Loops, R2 & B2

Team coaching was the factor with the highest correlation to positive team skills. Individuals who had leader coaching were more likely to have higher levels of team knowledge, skills and abilities (Hartenian, 2003). Shanahan (2001)s model also mentioned the impact of feedback and coaching on team members skills and knowledge. Therefore, leader coaching is a flow into the teams knowledge, skills and abilities. That flow is a dynamic that creates a positive feedback loop resulting in the teams knowledge, skills and abilities to be higher than they would have, and eventually improving team overall performance. Also, Hackman (1983) suggested for a team to be successful it must have coaching that should be made available to direct team members how to coordinate and cooperate with others in the team, as this is a very crucial, yet difficult skill to attain. In addition, Klimoski and Jones (1995) suggested that team leadership have influence on team performance through direct or indirect interpersonal means (team process) and thus, such dynamics are represented by the balancing loop B2 (see Figure 10).

Figure 3 Managerial Ability

Figure 4 High Level View of the System Dynamics Model of Team Management Structural factors such as organizational context and managerial ability are treated as exogenous variables since the team generally has no direct control over such factors. The combination of two reinforcing loops and two balancing loops provide equilibrium to the model. Team processes and team competencies cannot go up or down forever and the balancing loops in the system prevent them from doing so. This condition can be characterized as limits to growth (Senge, 1990; Senge et al., 1999). In the case of team processes and competencies, as the team trains, its performance will improve, but there are certain aspects such as constraints in organizational context or even managerial ability may limit the growth of the team performance. Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships. Michael Jordan

A Systemic Approach to Football Team Management The English Premier League (EPL) is probably one of the most popular football competitions in the world. The current format of the Premiership was created in 1995, when the number of clubs was reduced from twenty-two to twenty. Each team plays against all the other teams in the league twice, for a total of 38 matches for each team per season. The number of points scored in the season determines the position of teams in the table. In this paper, the team performance is determined by the position of team in the table, or league standing in a season, whereas the desired performance goal is determined by the position of team in the table, which is set by the football team management board at the start of each season. The position of team will be quantified into number between 0 and 1. For example, if the management board fancy the title chance this year, the value can be set between 0.9 and 1. However, if the objective is to achieve top half finish in the table, then it can be set at 0.5. The contribution of the football manager to team performance can be broken down into a direct and an indirect component. Taking the collection of players at his disposal as given, the managers direct contribution is to maximise performance through astute team selection, superior tactics and powers of motivations that improve the team processes. Over the longer term, the managers indirect contribution is to enhance his existing squad, by coaching players so as to improve their skills, and generate a positive impact on team competencies. Organizational context refers to the support from the football team management board, which it can be offered through the framework that consists of investment in the development of players through training facilities and youth academy. In addition, cash injections to bring in quality players and backroom staff into the squad, not to mention the cash reward that will be given out at the end of the season to serve as a motivation to team, provided the desired

performance goal is achieved. These support contexts will improve the team overall performance, as discussed in Section 2 through various literature reviews. According to the research by Dawson (2000), it is difficult to evaluate the quality of a player independently of his team-mates and manager, for simplicity Dawson assumes that team quality, or team competencies is the linear sum of the skills of individual players. Besides this, the empirical studies show that the transfer market value of players is systematically related to a number of factors that are correlated with player quality, including age, experience, international recognition and goal scoring records. Dawson therefore measures player quality using the fitted transfer value of each player in each team at the start of each season. In other words, to quantify the team competencies, the equation is as follow, Team Competencies= overall transfer market value for each player in the team. The information of the transfer market value of each player can be obtained through http://www.betinf.com/prev_england.htm at start of the season 2010-2011. Only key players transfer value was captured in this paper, as we assume that only key players made the significant impact to the overall team competencies throughout the season. to understand the complex interdependences of factors and underlying structures at the behavioral level, which influence football team performance over time. 3.2.1 Performance Equation Performance= Organizational Context * Team Processes * Team Competencies The equation makes clear through its mathematical expression that the multiplication signs imply that if any factor is zero, the performance will be zero.

Team processes have been defined as the intragroup and intergroup actions that transform resources into a product (Gladstein, 1984). Leader coaching is designed to improve coordination and performance by providing guidance to the team (Hackman & Wageman, 2005). There are three types of coaching: Motivational coaching- designed to minimize social loafing and increase team commitment Consultative coaching- focuses on strategies to improve team performance and increase coordination among team roles and tasks Educational coaching- helps to build the knowledge, skills, abilities of team members and the team as a whole. Cohen and Bailey (1997) conducted a meta-analysis of work teams during the 1990s. Their review of 54 work teams shows that the factors important for high performance are depending on the types of teams. In the next section, we will apply the professional football team context into the theoretical model above, and then use system dynamics approach to understand the complex interdependences of factors and underlying structures that influence football team performance over time. Our study has eliminated observations that include mid-season changes of manager or backroom staff. These wages include pay for all players, managers, coaches, back-up staff and other FC staff. As a like-for-like comparison, its probably as close to accurate as we can get short of actually having 2010-11s numbers. A managerial change has no implications on team performance.