Leadership is a topic commonly discussed and mentioned within the sporting world, and really the world in general. Be that a character trait or a position such as a coach or captain, every organized group of people requires some form of leadership, be that a good leader or bad. There is debate on leadership; where it comes from, what traits entail leadership, are you born a leader or can you learn it, etc. This article will seek to summarize a few schools of thought on leadership and provide some concluding thoughts on what I think leadership is at various levels and how to instill and nurture it.
According to Leadership: Theory & Practice Ninth Edition by Peter G. Northouse (2021), leadership is "a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal" (p. 6). Heroic Leadership by Chris Lowney (2009) evaluates and explains the qualities of Jesuit leadership and describes leaders' duties as "establishing direction, aligning people, motivating and inspiring, and producing change" (pp. 13-14). The Jesuits, according to Lowney, look at leadership through a different lens with the main differences being "1) we're all leaders, leading all the time, well or poorly, 2) Leadership springs from within and is about who I am as much as what I do, 3) Leadership is not an act, it is a way of living, and 4) Leadership is an ongoing process and is never complete" (p. 15). Two authors from different perspectives describe leadership as a process. It is important to look at the wording of these definitions, largely saying it is a process of influence meaning, that it is not a direct, one-way transaction, but relies on the feedback and interaction from the followers. This is a critical distinction when looking at leadership as a trait, a skill, a behavior, or a situational approach, as the author and others do.
Leadership Breakdown
Trait leadership, defined by Northouse (2021) is the school of thought that people are born with certain traits that enable them to be leaders. This has been the school of thought for a long time and continues to be a major belief in my experience with sports. Trait leadership implies that if you are not born with the qualities that make a leader, you will not be able to be a leader, or at least you won't be an effective leader. This school of thought seems pessimistic to me since it eliminates those who believe they do not inherently have the arbitrary traits that make a leader. Furthermore, there are a wide array of environments that require various styles of leadership, requiring a large variety of traits that may not be in line with what is considered a proper 'leader'. Various studies and surveys have analyzed the 'traits' people most closely associated with leadership, with the first being done in 1948 until as recently as 2017. Some of these traits have remained similar however, they have become more evolved and detailed as time has gone on. The latest survey (Zaccaro et. al., 2017) indicated the top traits include the following: cognitive ability, extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness, agreeableness, motivation, social intelligence, self-monitoring, emotional intelligence, and problem-solving. As previously mentioned, these results have shifted each time they are surveyed or researched, indicating one weakness of the trait leadership theory is being unable to pin down the set of traits that make a leader.
A skills approach to leadership is defined as "the ability to use one's knowledge and competencies to accomplish a set of goals or objectives" (Northouse, 2021. p. 57). As the author notes, "skills are what a leader can accomplish, where traits are who leaders are" (p. 57). The author cites three skills that leaders need to depend on to be successful; 1) technical skills, 2) human skills, and 3) conceptual skills. In opposition to the trait approach, the skills approach looks at experience and competency for leadership, yielding the chance for leadership to be learned. According to M. Mumford, et. al. (2000), "there are 5 components in a skill-based model; 1) competencies, 2) individual attributes, 3) career experiences, 4) environmental influences, and 5) leadership outcomes (performance and problem solving)" (Northouse, 2021. p. 60). In opposition to trait leadership, skill-based leadership focuses on the abilities of leaders to develop and polish their skills to become better leaders. Additionally, a skill-based theory allows management and leadership hierarchies to plan and develop leaders through teaching the desired skills and training them to refine the qualities and characteristics of these skills. This opens leadership up to everyone, which helps drive the pursuit of advancement and knowledge in order to become a leader in their organization or life.
According to Northouse (2021), the behavioral approach "emphasizes the behavior of the leader... focuses exclusively on what leaders do and how they act" (p. 84). This approach is separate from the trait and skills approach to leadership in that both of the aforementioned approaches rely on a set list of skills or characteristics that is constantly evolving and changing based on the current culture. A behavior approach can evaluate a person who may be 'trained' in leadership, or is a 'born leader' and see how they actually act in various leadership situations. According to various studies (Ohio State, Michigan, and Blake and Mouton (1964, 1978, 1985)), there are two dimensions to behavioral leadership; task and relationship. Task behavior-oriented people are goal-oriented and set their behaviors focused on accomplishing the goals they hope to achieve. The relationship-oriented leader focuses on making connections and the well-being of their followers, aligning their behavior with the human attributes of leadership. According to Lowney (2009), "Love was the lens through which individual Jesuits behold the world around them. It changed not only the way Jesuits looked at others but what they saw. Their vision became more acute, their eyes open to talent and potential" (p. 170). The Jesuit's approach to behavioral leadership focuses on being love-driven focusing on 3 specific points: "the vision to see each person's talent, potential, and dignity, the courage, passion, and commitment to unlock that potential, and the resulting loyalty and mutual support that energizes and unite teams" (p. 170). This love-driven approach blends into the relationship-driven leader and helps establish buy-in and loyalty among followers that motivate them to accomplish tasks and goals.
Situational leadership is a diverse style that requires leaders to constantly adjust and adapt to the ever-changing situations they encounter. According to Northouse (2021) “the situational approach focuses on leadership in situations…different situations demand different kinds of leadership… effective leadership requires that people adapt their style to the demands of different situations'' (p. 109). Situational leadership breaks down into two different patterns; directive, which involves achieving tasks and goals through direction such as delegating, timelines, milestones, etc.; and supportive, which focuses on enabling the individual’s self-confidence, and building up the team (p. 110). The major benefit of this approach to leadership is its ability to dictate a situation, as opposed to only obtaining a certain set of skills or being born with them. Situational leadership focuses on the individuals under the leader and is able to prescribe which approach the leader should use depending on the situation and the characteristics of the followers. This simplifies leadership, without watering it down, requiring the leader to be efficient in both directing and creating social connections. Additionally, the situational approach to leadership individualizes leadership to the individuals’ strengths and weaknesses, creating a better connection between the leader and followers. Criticisms of situational leadership focus on the various behavioral patterns and their effectiveness over others. Different people and situations require different styles of leadership, and, with its complexity, situational leadership can be misused and ineffective. Additionally, situational leadership focuses on the commitment of its followers, which is not clearly defined. Some studies suggest commitment is a combination of confidence and motivation, but even this is not clear how these two parameters blend to create commitment. This ambiguity leaves leaders in a gray area, unsure of how to lead if a follower is not fully committed. Additionally, the situational style of leadership does not specify group or individual leadership, nor does it address how to adapt the leadership style to either. Group leadership involves many individuals, which requires various styles of coaching, that cannot be accommodated by a situational leadership approach. If the leader focuses on group leadership (which in a group setting, would make sense), then there will inevitably be some people that are not reached with the chosen leadership style.
In addition to the aforementioned styles of leadership, there are various approaches and motivations to leadership. These are the more commonly thought of discussions when leadership is brought up in conversations or seminars. The approaches utilize the various styles previously discussed, with the difference here being the application of those styles within the organization or with the individual. These approaches include transformational leadership, authentic leadership, servant leadership, and adaptive leadership.
Transformational leadership, according to Northouse (2021) “is a process that changes and transforms people. It is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals. It includes assessing followers’ motives, satisfying their needs, and treating them as full human beings. Transformational leadership involves an exceptional form of influence that moves followers to accomplish more than what is usually expected of them. It is a process that often incorporates charismatic and visionary leadership” (p. 185). Transformational leadership opposes transactional leadership where transactional leadership focuses on the exchange between the leader and follower. This looks like a coach promising play time in exchange for the athlete to show up to lifting, or teachers who provide a grade for an assignment. Providing a reward for the required task indicates a transactional leader. Transformational leaders inspire their followers to want to be better and achieve their goals. They do this by being attentive to the needs and motivations of their followers and creating a connection with their followers. Transformational leadership looks like a coach coming in and changing core values and standards, and holding athletes and coaches to them. It is extremely important that transformational leadership comes from a genuine desire to create and instill change in the culture. Fake transformational leadership will be seen straight through and will not provide the buy-in required to change the culture. The leader needs to be all in for their followers to commit to the sacrifices and changes required for a transformation. Transformational leadership is extremely difficult due to the frequent roadblocks, traditions, cultures, and burnout that need to be managed and overcome. In short, transformational leadership focuses on enabling followers to become better versions of themselves, in line with accomplishing the tasks and goals.
Authentic leadership is a newer approach to leadership with the realization of people wanting transparency from their leadership, be that political, corporate, or any other organization. Because of this, authentic leadership is largely undefined however, there are various attempts to define what being an authentic leader is and how to approach this leadership style. Basically, there are three different perspectives; the first is intrapersonal, focusing on the leader understanding themselves including their purpose, values, and self-knowledge. The second is an interpersonal perspective, where leaders focus on establishing genuine relationships with their followers, creating a leadership model around both the leader and followers. The third is a developmental perspective where authenticity is nurtured as the leader develops through life events and experiences. Authentic leadership, from any perspective, requires the leader to ‘know themselves’ According to Lowney (2009) the Jesuit approach to authentic leadership is an introspective journey that involves “ appreciating oneself as talented; identifying personal, derailing baggage that prevents the realization of full potential, especially weaknesses that manifest themselves as habitual tendencies; articulating personally motivating goals and ambitions-not being content to merely drift along but instead living in accordance to one’s personal sense of magis; determining what one stands for, what impact one wants to make; developing a worldview that guides interaction with others; acquiring the habit of updating oneself regularly, indeed daily, on all of these” (pp. 95-96). As the Jesuits believe, “all leadership begins with self-leadership, and self-leadership begins with knowing oneself” (p. 98). Authentic leadership comes from within and cannot be faked or phoned in without the followers noticing and buy-in suffering. Additionally, authentic leadership requires regular self-evaluation in order to maintain the self-knowledge required to execute authentic leadership well.
Servant leadership is the most commonly cited style when discussing coaching and healthcare professionals (in my experience). According to Northouse (2021) “servant leadership emphasizes that leaders be attentive to the concerns of their followers, empathize with them, and nurture them. Servant leaders put followers first, empower them, and help them develop their full personal capacities” (p. 253). Servant leadership focuses on the leader serving their followers in a way that allows them to reach their full potential and be able to not only do their jobs but excel at their jobs and in their lives. As mentioned, servant leadership is found throughout sports, healthcare, and religious organizations due to its moral/social nature that focuses on uplifting individuals to their full potential, rather than a task-focused approach. Northouse cites Spears (2002) in identifying ten characteristics of a servant leader as follows:
Listening
Empathy
Healing
Awareness
Persuasion
Conceptualization
Foresight
Stewardship
Commitment to the growth of people
Building community
Significant benefits of servant leadership include improved buy-in by focusing on putting the followers first and keeping altruism its central pillar. This leads to, according to a meta-analysis, more accurate predictions of follower performance and attitudes. Additionally, servant leadership makes abuse of power very difficult when the followers are put first. However, servant leadership may lead to a confusion of power where lines are not clearly drawn and direction may remain ambiguous. Due to the nature of servant leadership, it is also hard to influence large-scale change on an organizational level. Servant leadership is an approach that can be used in settings that focus on individual growth and uplifting others. Sports, healthcare, religion, and education, are all organizations where servant leadership will thrive as opposed to other leadership styles.
Adaptive leadership focuses on the leader helping their followers adapt and face problems and adversity as they meet them. This is also a beneficial leadership approach for sports and education which requires teaching youth how to handle problems. Northouse (2021) defines adaptive leadership as “the practice of mobilizing people to tackle tough challenges and thrive… engage in activities that mobilize, motivate, organize, orient, and focus the attention of others… in addition, it is about helping others to explore and change their values… in short, adaptive leadership is the behavior of and the actions undertaken by leaders to encourage others to address and resolve changes that are central in their lives” (p. 286). Breaking down adaptive leadership, there tend to be four biases’ that are common throughout the research; these include systems bias (understanding that most problems people face are part of a larger system of problems), biological bias (understanding the biological stress adaptation and how people developmentally evolve), service orientation bias (using experience or expertise to ‘diagnose’ problems and find solutions), and psychotherapeutic bias (understand the supportive needs in adaptation and distinguishing between reality and fantasy for their followers). Adaptive leadership, similar to servant leadership, puts the followers first however, rather than a loving, nurturing approach, adaptive leadership pushes people out of their comfort zone, to learn how to overcome adversity and challenge. This leadership style also teaches followers to view problems and situations from different perspectives, shedding light on various motivations, solutions, and outcomes that may have been overlooked previously. According to Lowney (2009), the Jesuits view adaptive leadership as setting people up for their own success (p.204). Empowering individuals to achieve their own success, breeds followers to be self-motivated instead of forcing it through gimmicks or culture talks (p. 205). As a leader, it is important to teach your followers how to adapt to situations they may face, in order to effectively delegate work and trust your followers to complete that work.
Concluding Thoughts
As the previous section covered, there are various theories of how to develop leadership, and styles leaders can exhibit. These theories and practices can be utilized in various situations and can be developed in line with the type of followers, or situation the leader is in. Different people respond to different styles of leadership, making leadership a dynamic flow of interaction between followers and leaders. This process of leadership has been noted and described by both cited authors, and most styles of leadership focus on putting the followers first to be effective in them.
The nature and history of sport can help orient the style of leadership that a coach, teacher, athlete, or parent should use. Sport is a competitive environment that elicits a physical and psychological response from athletes, coaches, and parents. How athletes and coaches manage this stress, ultimately dictates their success in the season and in their careers. An athlete captain needs to be an extension of the coach and does not necessarily have to have the same leadership style as the coaches, but does have to project the same message and vision as the coaches. Leadership, at any level, is about enabling the followers to accomplish the goal. With that in mind, visions and mission statements should fall in line with enabling the person rather than the leader. There should be some transformation from the beginning of an athlete-coach relationship to the end, for better or worse. I am not specifically referring to transformational leadership, but the nature of coaching and teaching requires those leaders to make a significant contribution to the lives of those they interact with.
Deciding your leadership style is based on your strengths and weaknesses. No one can tell you what kind of leader to be, or else it loses authenticity. Leadership and its traits can absolutely be learned and practiced, the same as any other skill, and it is important leaders are learning and practice it. But you need to focus on polishing strengths and developing weaknesses, through self-reflection and self-knowledge. All styles of leadership require the leader to know who they are and why they lead. Without that information, the leader is a boat without a compass, in the middle of the ocean, with no port to sail to.
Personally, I think that leadership in sports should focus on developing the athlete’s character and life skills. Understanding how to work in a group, how to face and deal with stress and anxiety, how to overcome large obstacles, how to listen to authority and follow directions, and how to think strategically both for their sport and in life. The coaches should have mentors that help develop both their sport-specific traits as well as their leadership traits, just as that coach should be developing in their athletes. This should be a continual domino effect where the leaders are always learning and developing future leaders, who then go on to lead and teach future leaders themselves. Since only about 7.5% of high school athletes go on to play collegiate sports at any level (and only about 2% at a DI level) ("Odds of a high school athlete making a college team," 2020) the focus should not be solely on athletic performance or skill acquisition, but rather providing the athlete with the tools required to be successful in their future careers, families, and lives in general. Ultimately, I believe that the athletes a coach coaches, directly reflect the abilities, characteristics, and values of that coach, due to the influence coaches have when shaping the lives and character of their athletes. Coaches and educators have a very unique and important role in developing the lives of people of all ages. From youth to college and professional athletes, coaches and teachers directly shape the lives and futures of their athletes. This is a very important role and should be taken extremely seriously, placing major importance on effective leadership.
References
Lowney, C. (2009). Heroic leadership: Best practices from a 450-Year-Old company that changed the world. Loyola Press.
Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Sage College Publishing.
Odds of a high school athlete making a college team. (2020, October 8). Scholarship Stats.com | Play your Sport in College!. https://scholarshipstats.com/varsityodds
Comments
Post a Comment