As an unpredictable human action, multiple factors both internal and external are intricately tested to understand, anticipate and improve human performance. As such, it is not rational to focus on any one activity, mechanism, or variable as being responsible for all internal and external concerns that enhance or hinder human performance. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In any sport or discipline, the terms team and cohesion are intertwined; if a group exists, it must be cohesive to some extent. Cohesion can be defined as a dynamic process that is reflected in a group's tendency to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental goals and/or for the satisfaction of members' affective needs. This definition, which represents a slight modification of the one originally introduced by Carron (1982), explicitly highlights the nature of cohesion as it manifests itself in most groups. Furthermore, the above definition highlights that cohesion is multidimensional. There are many factors that cause a group to stick together and stay together, and these factors may not be present with equal weight and intensity in another seemingly identical group. A second property emphasized by this definition is that cohesion is dynamic, meaning that it is not so much a transitory state but neither is it as stable as a trait. Cohesion in a group can (and does) change over time so that factors that contribute to cohesion early in a group's history may or may not be critical, for example when the group is well developed. A third property of the above definition is What we intend to highlight is the instrumental nature of cohesion, that is, the formation of all groups for a purpose. Furthermore, in recent decades, the increase in teams and working groups within an organization or club has attracted particular interest among sport psychologists; it is also not surprising that numerous authors and experts have attempted to define and measure cohesion to obtain the best possible benefits, unfortunately it is difficult to measure a theoretical construct, which is by definition an abstraction and, therefore, not directly observable. However, this synthesis and The following intervention protocol seeks to better understand the influence and relationship of group cohesion on team performance in sport. This will be achieved through understanding how internal processes interact with external demands and environmental stimuli. Main body: There is a relatively large body of literature on the relationship between group cohesion and team success disciplines, including: sports, organizational behavior, industrial psychology, and management (Carron, Bray, & Eys, 2002; Devine, Clayton, Phillips, Dunford and Melner, 1999; Yang and Tang (2004) The study of group cohesion in sport and its relationship to team effectiveness has a long and rich tradition. The relationship between group cohesion and team success has been widely explored (e.g., Carron & Chelladurai, 1981; Landers & Luschen, 1974; Lenk, 1969). Mullen and Copper (1994) performed a meta-analysis of 49 studies on different teams (e.g., military, sports, business) and concluded that the relationship between group cohesion and team performance was explicitly positive. This finding has been replicated in more recent work (Beal et al., 2003; Evans & Dion, 2012), which also found a positive relationship between group cohesion and team performance. This makes sense if so..