Here's what I'm talking about. When the members of a team feel like a team; they're willing to make themselves useful for the team and make sacrifices for the team then I'd say they have bought-in to the idea of that team. I use the word idea because I think in such a situation that team means something particular to the players. There is an identity about the team. Something that differentiates them from other teams. Like a style of play or an attitude or something they identify with and like.
When there is no buy in there is the attitude of "why should I make sacrifices if others on the team aren't".
Buy-in enables a team to get good in a way that wouldn't be possible otherwise. And it can make for a more rewarding experience regardless of how good the team is.
It's easier to achieve for some teams:
- Very high level teams. They are often made up of players that would buy into most very high level teams. Or at least I imagine. I've not seen the inner workings of many.
- National teams. There's a certain pride and honour in representing your country, and players would feel a responsibility to do right by that team. A good tradition of national sports teams is something that is already there to buy-in to.
- Teams of mates.
- Spirited teams.
- Teams that start out with a shared identity that they're already proud of. Like perhaps teams strongly tied to a particular place. (where there isn't also some other team there). I'd say there could be other possibilities here too.
For some teams - it's harder.
- Teams with a really stupid name. (in the opinion of their players). It's difficult to be proud of your team if its name is something you're ashamed of.
- Unspirited teams. (although if it doesn't bother anyone on the team, then its not an issue I guess. In this regard at least)
- Teams with big personality clashes
- Disparate teams. If a team is made up of players from all over the place, it can lack that place identity. And it can be harder to get to know team mates. (though a few tournaments would do it).
- New teams. Particularly when the players don' know each other to start with. If you don't know your teammates how do you know they'll match your efforts? No team starts off with total buy-in. It's something they'll have to develop.
Its something captains (and coaches) have to be aware of. They have an important role in setting the right conditions to allow team-wide buy in to develop. And for all I know, a popular captain with great social intelligence can do even more than that, but it's over my head.
It was talking ultimate articles on captaincy that got me thinking about the whole thing in the first place. I think Fiona's piece best addressed the issue; how it specifically related to her team. Read that for ideas of what exactly to do.
Achieving the conditions to allow 'buy-in' from players to happen is one of the greatest things a captain can do. That and maintaining it once it's there. Everything else follows.
