Running head: AN ANALYSIS OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT, CONFLICT, AND LEADERSHIP IN MIRACLE 1

An Analysis of Team Development, Conflict, and Leadership in Miracle

Ryan Biddlecombe, Alex Eicher, Stefan Elslager, Kyle Linford, Mary Kate MacLean, Jasmine

Pearson, and Jasmine Sparks

Eastern Michigan University

Running head: AN ANALYSIS OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT, CONFLICT, AND LEADERSHIP IN MIRACLE 2

An Analysis of Team Development, Conflict, and Leadership in Miracle

The 1980 “Miracle on Ice” US men’s hockey team was a team that showed the world

how miracles can happen. At a time when the country was gripped in a Cold War with the

Soviet Union, their success in the games became crucial for helping to restore patriotism and

demonstrating how team work can succeed. In 2004, this story was made into a Disney movie,

Miracle, to tell the story of what happened to make this team of underdogs succeed against

some of the best teams in the world and win the gold medal. From this film’s background

account of this historical event, the success of the hockey team, while appearing to be a

miraculous achievement, can be seen as the sum of strategic work that head coach Herb Brooks

utilized to develop a collection of individuals into an Olympic team. Because of this strategic

influence to promote the team’s development, their achievement can be seen as a rather

unmiraculous miracle.

The film begins in 1979 with a meeting between Herb Brooks and officials at the United

States Olympic Committee, where Brooks interviewed for the position to coach the US men’s

Olympic hockey team. In the interview, Brooks sets the tone for how he will lead this team to

achieving his goal of winning the gold medal. Receiving the job, Brooks goes to work and begins

to implement this plan for reaching the perceived impossible goal. As the coach, Herb did

things very different that year leading up to the Olympics. During the beginning of the film,

tryouts are held to find players. Rather than consult with the required delegates after a week

of tryouts, Herb selected the team members directly after only one day stating his reason for

this quick decision being, “I don’t want the best players. I want the right ones.” Brooks’ goal

was to build the cohesion between players in such a way that they would be able to defeat the
Running head: AN ANALYSIS OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT, CONFLICT, AND LEADERSHIP IN MIRACLE 3

Soviets and ultimately win the gold. These team members were then put through Brooks’

training as he pushed them to their physical limits to develop them as a team. Herb was trying

to display chemistry amongst the players and that is how he felt they would win it all. Before

the tournament the team had several preseason games where they had played poorly and had

a lot more team chemistry and team building to do.

The US men’s hockey team went into the tournament as huge underdogs but started to

defy all the odds and win every game leading up to the semifinal round where they played the

best team in the world—the Soviet Union. The Soviets had won four gold medals previously and

were seen as unbeatable by everyone they faced. The US team had already played them earlier

that year and lost by seven points. However, the US team was undefeated and had shown a lot

more team chemistry leading up to that point. Politically, the United States was at a period of

confrontation in the Cold War with the Soviet Union and the Communist Party. These political

tensions made this game crucial to the whole country that America beat the Soviets and show

America’s strength. Ultimately, the US overcame the Soviet threat and won against them in the

semifinals, four to three. They then went on to win against Sweden in the championship to win

the gold medal. They were able to achieve the miracle they set out to win. However, achieving

this miracle took more work than what is initially expected.

The ability to achieve these high expectations was largely influenced by the

development of the team unit. This cohesive unit is suggested to have allowed them to be

better prepared for the games and ultimately win. However, this high level of cooperation and

cohesion was not produced instantly; rather, team development was an issue that was an

ongoing battle from the beginning. Herb Brooks knew what was necessary to succeed as a
Running head: AN ANALYSIS OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT, CONFLICT, AND LEADERSHIP IN MIRACLE 4

team, and because of this, he selects specific players that he believes will build this cooperative

unit. During a beginning scene were tryouts are held for the Olympic team, college hockey

players from around the country were invited to come to what was supposed to be an all week

session where the selection of members was to be made by the combined input of Brooks and

a selection committee. However, after only a day, Brooks had selected the initial 26 players

that would be participating in the offseason training session and preseason scrimmages. When

his direct actions were questioned, Brooks explained, “I don’t want the best players. I want the

right ones,” and with this, the team development process began. However, this process was

not as quick and easily achieved as he continued to create this team.

Conflict between team members became a necessary issue to be addressed. Jehn (as

cited in Hamm-Kerwin, 2010) defined intragroup conflict as "perceptions by the parties involved

[in a group] that they hold discrepant views or have interpersonal incompatibilities.

Furthermore, intragroup conflict is a multi-dimensional construct characterized by task,

process, and relationship conflict. From the very start of the movie Herb Brooks created

conflict. It started with his meeting with the selection committee; he wanted to change the way

team USA had been coached in the past. Immediately the higher ups of the committee balked

at this idea. One of them even refused to shake Herb’s hand at the conclusion of the meeting.

However, Brooks furthered this conflict with organization by refusing to work with them on the

selection process by choosing his own players.

This conflict was not solely caused by Brooks. Throughout the film, there were multiple

player conflict issues. As stated in the article “Resolving Team Conflict” (1996), “All coaches and

athletes are confronted with team conflict at some time” (Copeland). However, the players
Running head: AN ANALYSIS OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT, CONFLICT, AND LEADERSHIP IN MIRACLE 5

primarily experienced these conflicts when first coming together as a team. After the initial 26

members were selected, the film depicts a scene where the team went out to a local bar to

celebrate. The team split up between different groups, mainly between the past college rivalry

of Boston University and the University of Minnesota. This rivalry was driven by some

controversial calls in the 1976 national championship game. One of the players, Jack

O’Callahan, who played for Boston University, discussed how another player, Rob McClanahan,

took his national championship because of a controversial shot in the game. This conflict

carries over into the next scene at practice when Jack O’Callahan and Rob McClanahan got into

a physical altercation because of these old rivalries and egos. Brooks let the players continue

the rest of the fight out and used it as a learning experience for the team: “Does this look like

hockey to you? Looks more like a couple of monkeys trying to hump a football.” This was a

pivotal turning point for the team because Brooks goes on to stop practice and have the team

get to know one another by player introductions. As a coach and leader, he had to try and

bring the team together.

One of the ways Brooks was able to go about doing this was by pushing into everyone’s

minds that they were representing team USA and no one else. Initially, when prompted to

identify their names, hometown, and team they play for, many players responded with the

university team that they played for in the past. However, this focus shifted when the team

was given suicides for tying against the lesser Norwegian national team. Brooks made the team

do suicides for a long time after they had just finished the game in their full pads and many

players had even started getting sick because of how hard they were being pushed. Eventually

soon to be named team captain Michael Eruzioni yelled out his name and Herb Brooks
Running head: AN ANALYSIS OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT, CONFLICT, AND LEADERSHIP IN MIRACLE 6

responded, “Who do you play for?” Eruzioni, as a member of the developing team unit,

answered back, “The United States of America.” This showed the team that what they are

playing for is much bigger than just one individual person and that this was something a whole

nation was behind. Additionally, the article, “Resolving Team Conflict” (1996), explored the

importance of roles on a team as a cooperative unit: “A clear understanding and acceptance of

one's role leads to a sense of purposeful identity with the team, which can improve team

loyalty and decrease rule-breaking behavior” (Copeland). By working to define the role of the

players as beyond just their position by creating the unifying identity of the team, Brooks builds

these players’ cooperation and puts together a team. Just as Brooks as when Brooks states,

“The name on the front of your jersey is more important the name on the back,” he shows the

players that the success of this team is based on more than just their individual successes.

His tactics were at first to try and bring the team together with a common hatred of

him. He worked them hard and tried to instill in them that they were not playing for

themselves or their old universities but for the United States of America. Brooks pushed the

team hard with many suicides, a lot of repetition when it came to learning and running their

offensive formations, and mental toughness. The team started showing signs of cooperation

when a new line was made up comprised of players from Boston and Minnesota who worked

so well together it was as if they had been playing together for years and not weeks. They were

called the “Cone Head Line” and thus started some team togetherness instead of just a bunch

of individuals.

With these experiences, the team started to come together. When Herb Brooks

brought in a current University of Minnesota player who was initially cut in the opening
Running head: AN ANALYSIS OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT, CONFLICT, AND LEADERSHIP IN MIRACLE 7

combine to play in some of the pre-Olympic scrimmages, he created conflict because the

original team members became worried about their spots. However, instead of fighting with

each other they banded together and met with Herb. At this meeting, the team tells him of

their unhappiness with his decision to bring the new player in so late. Brooks questioned their

viewpoint and asked why he should not be giving him a look at all. The guys responded,

“Because we’re a family.” This section of the film showed Brooks what he had been trying to

get the team to do from the beginning was finally been completed; he brought them together

as a team. It did this because they created a bond through all the gruesome practices and time

they had spent together under Herb. They met with Herb and called their team a family. Saying

that it was too late to bring a new team member on because he did not go through what they

went through. Brooks agreed and allowed the team to make this decision. In this way, he was

able to see the response he wanted and utilized this conflict for the betterment of the team.

While this team worked to develop their cooperation and operate as a single unit, their

success was possible through the leadership of Brooks. It is from his guidance that the team

was able to actually develop and utilize the necessary skills to meet the necessary needs. One

of the pivotal elements that made this team successful is the leadership of Brooks. Coach

Brooks’ leadership style pushed the players to be their best. It can be seen that the coach’s

direction for the team is different right from the interview process. Coach Brooks proposes

several changes in the way the team operates and the way they teach the team to be a team.

He looks at the competing teams strengths and wants to adopt their style of training into the

way he coaches the team. Brooks sees that group cohesion is the most important element to

creating an effective team stating, “All-star teams fail because they rely solely on the
Running head: AN ANALYSIS OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT, CONFLICT, AND LEADERSHIP IN MIRACLE 8

individuals’ talent; the soviets win because they take that talent and they use it inside a system

that’s designed for the betterment of the team.” Brooks states this to show how group

cohesion has better their competing teams in the past and how the USA current style is not

bettering their players because of the team’s “me” mentality.

Coach Brooks takes this mindset right into building an effective team into the tryouts

when he picks his roster of 26 members from the first day of tryouts and oversteps the board in

his decisions. During practice, he creates this cohesion by creating team accountability, were

its not “your” failure its “our” failure. An example of this is the question Brooks asks his team,

“What team do you play for?” Another powerful example is the suicide scene. Coach Brooks

created cohesion when he made the team run suicides after tying a game. Coach kept the team

on the ice for hours until one of the players yelled, “I play for the United States of America.”

The Coach’s leadership style was an essential part of creating team cohesion and the teams’

success. In a study by Paul Turman (2003) that explores the types of leadership styles and how

they relate to building cohesion within a team, Turman interviewed players to find out what

qualities in coaches and coaching styles contribute to overall team cohesion. Turman found six

qualities in the coach and athlete interaction that promoted team cohesion. These include

bragging, sarcasm/ teasing, motivational speeches, quality opponent, athlete directed

techniques, and team prayer. You can see some of these qualities in the leadership style of

Coach Brooks. In the Christmas scene you can see the qualities of sarcasm and teasing when

the team brought the coach a whip and the assistant coach a whistle. Coach Brooks gives a

motivational speech before the team goes and faces the Soviets, telling the team, “You were

born for this.” Brooks pushed them to be their best from the start and give their full
Running head: AN ANALYSIS OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT, CONFLICT, AND LEADERSHIP IN MIRACLE 9

cooperation. During practice he used athlete directed techniques to make sure the whole team

could be the best they could be.

Herb Brooks’ leadership style contributed greatly to the win that happened in 1980’s

winter Olympics. Brooks’ actions show the importance of having great leadership, as well as

great players. He ignored the executive committees and became an executive decision maker

for the team. With his leadership, the twenty boys from different colleges around the county

became one team and one family. Together, with all of their individual expertise, they were

able to work as a team and defeat the Soviet Union. Brooks’ constant pushing of the team had

built their collaborative interdependence and made them all want to succeed at something that

was better than them showing off their own individual talents. From the influence of Herb

Brooks, his actions as a leader to both handle conflict and develop a team made the win against

the Soviets possible. In this way, Brooks shows that perhaps this apparent miraculous

achievement was not as miraculous as it appears.

Running head: AN ANALYSIS OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT, CONFLICT, AND LEADERSHIP IN MIRACLE 10

References

Copeland, B. W., & Wida, Kathy. (1996). Resolving Team Conflict. Journal of Physical

Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(4), 52-54. doi: 10.1080/07303084.1996.10607376.

Hamm-Kerwin, S. M. (2010). Learning from the Experiences of Older Adult Volunteers in Sport:

A Serious Leisure Perspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(2). Retrieved from

http://js.sagamorepub.com/jlr/article/view/377/360.

Turman, P. D. (2003). Coaches and Cohesion: The Impact of Coaching Techniques on Team

Cohesion in the Small Group Sport Setting. Journal of Sports Behavior, 26(1), 86-103.

Retrieved from Google Scholar.