25.3: Athlete Leadership

Although there has been significant focus on coach leadership in the last 40 years, it has only been recently that the concept of leadership within teams and groups of athletes, termed athlete leadership, has started to receive significant attention. An athlete leader has been defined as “an athlete, occupying a formal or informal role within a team, who influences a group of team members to achieve a common goal” (Loughead et al., 2006, p. 144).

Building upon previous research, Fransen, Vanbeselaere, et al., (2014) developed a four-factor athlete leadership categorization system. This system includes two leadership roles on the field: the task leader, who provides tactical instructions to their teammates, and the motivational leader, who motivates their teammates on the field. The categorization system also includes two leadership roles off the field: the social leader, who fosters a good team atmosphere off the field, and the external leader, who handles the communication with club management, media, and sponsors. Fransen and colleagues (2014) emphasized the relevance of this leadership classification by demonstrating that effective fulfillment of the four leadership roles within a team resulted in higher team confidence, stronger team identification, and better team performance outcomes (e.g., ranking).

There has also been an increased focus on different types of athlete leaders as characterized by how formal their leadership position is. Some leadership is provided by formally appointed leaders such as captains, while at the same time, unappointed teammates can also provide peer leadership for their teams (Loughead & Hardy, 2005). As a result, a second approach to categorizing athlete leadership has been to explore the formal versus informal nature of leadership (Carron & Eys, 2012). Formal leadership roles are those that are prescribed or awarded (e.g., captains and vice captains). Informal leadership roles are those that emerge within the team as a result of interactions between teammates and the demands of the task (Cotterill, 2012). These informal leaders often act as the cultural architects for the team. Cultural architects are leaders who possess the ability to change the mindset of others (Railo, 1986). In sports teams, cultural architects are often more senior and vocal individuals who are respected by the rest of the team and thus play a prominent role in the development and maintenance of dominant team culture.

Informal leaders can both help and hinder the work of formal leaders (Cotterill & Cheetham, 2017). When informal leaders’ views complement the views of the formal leaders, they reinforce core messages, further enhancing the focused nature of the team environment. However, when informal leaders’ views conflict with those of the formal leaders, this can result in a lack of clarity within the team, resistance to the proposed approach, and broader conflict within the team. The same can be true for formal leaders. For example, when behaving in a negative way (e.g., competence-thwarting behavior), formal leaders can also have a negative impact on the team motivation and performance (Fransen, Van Puyenbroeck et al., 2015; Fransen, Vansteenkiste, et al., 2018). Competence-thwarting behaviors include providing negative feedback and displaying a lack of confidence in the ability of individuals and the team.

Fransen and colleagues (2014) emphasized the importance of informal leaders, reporting that in a study of 4,451 participants across nine team sports, the team captain in almost half (i.e., 44%) of the teams was not perceived as best leader in relation to any of the four leadership roles. In addition, a study using a network approach to leadership tempered these findings by demonstrating that leadership is shared within sport teams. In half of the teams observed, the team captain was perceived as the best leader in general. In the other half of these teams, the informal leaders, rather than the team captain, were perceived as the real leaders (Fransen, Van Puyenbroeck, et al., 2015). With regard to the specific leadership roles, findings demonstrated that in the majority of the teams, the captains were perceived as best task and external leaders. However, in the motivational and the social leadership role domains, informal leaders were largely perceived as the best leaders. Ultimately, leadership is shared within teams. The coach, team captain, and informal athlete leaders all pursue different leadership roles. Finally, it is important to note that the specific formal role of, and the importance assigned to, the captain can vary significantly from sport to sport, and across levels of performance (Cotterill, 2015).

25.3.1. Characteristics of Athlete Leaders

Initial research focused on athlete leaders characteristics explored a number of descriptive and observable aspects of leader behavior that athlete leaders are more highly skilled than their teammates (Glenn & Horn, 1993; Moran & Weiss, 2006; Price & Weiss, 2011; Yukelson et al., 1983); are more likely to be starters (Gill & Perry, 1979; Loughead et al., 2006); have more experience (Gill & Perry, 1979; Yukelson et al., 1983); and have more playing time (Fransen, Van Puyenbroeck, et al., 2015)

A number of research studies have sought to understand the behaviors, traits and skills of effective athlete leaders. For example, Klonsky (1991) reported that athlete leaders demonstrated higher levels of dominance, ambition, competitiveness, and responsibility compared to players who were not perceived as leaders. In a more recent study, Moran and Weiss (2006) suggested that athlete leaders could be viewed in terms of both instrumental traits (including being independent, energetic, self-confident) and expressiveness traits (including being emotional, gentle, kind, warm in interactions with others). It has also been reported that effective athlete leaders need good interpersonal skills (Holmes et al., 2010), have the ability to develop effective relationships with other team members (Fransen, Van Puyenbroeck, et al., 2015), and crucially need to be trusted and respected their teammates (Bucci et al., 2012; Dupuis et al., 2006).

Furthermore, Callow et al. (2009) identified transformational leadership behaviors that are important for athlete leaders, such as: individual consideration (showing respect for followers and concern for their personal feelings and needs), inspirational motivation (developing, articulating, and inspiring others with their vision for the future), and intellectual stimulation (challenging followers to reexamine their assumptions about their work and reconsider how it can be performed). These leaders also foster acceptance of group goals, have high performance expectations, use appropriate role modelling of behaviors that are consistent with values that the leaders espouse, and provide positive reinforcement in return for appropriate follower behavior and performance.

A more modern approach to peer leadership in sport is the social identity approach (Haslam et al., 2011). This perspective asserts that in order to mobilize athletes’ efforts and to be successful as a peer leader, leaders need to be “seen as one of us” (be identity prototypes), “craft a sense of us” (be identity entrepreneurs), “do it for us” (be identity champions), and “embed a sense of us” (be identity impresarios; Steffens et al., 2014). Research has highlighted that when coaches and athlete leaders succeed in building a united feeling of “we” and “us,” this joint team identity will, in turn, foster athletes’ motivation and performance-related outcomes (Fransen, Haslam et al., 2015; Fransen et al., 2016; Rees et al., 2015; Slater et al., 2015; Slater et al., 2018).

25.3.2. Assessing Athlete Leadership

A number of assessment tools and been developed that have been used to assess athlete leadership quality including the Player Leadership Scale (Kozub, 1993), the Identity Leadership Inventory (Steffens et al., 2014), and Social Network Analysis (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).

The Player Leadership Scale distinguished between instrumental and task leadership behaviors (e.g., “helps to set goals for the team”), as well as expressive and social leadership behaviors (e.g., “helps to settle conflicts among team members”). Research with interscholastic student-athletes demonstrated that male student-athletes generally perceived task leadership behaviors as significantly more important for athlete leaders than did female student-athletes, who showed no favoritism between task and social leadership behaviors (Todd & Kent, 2004).

The Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI; Steffens et al., 2014; van Dick et al., 2018) explores the extent to which leadership behaviors foster a shared team identity. The scale is composed of four dimensions of effective identity-based leadership. First, effective leaders must be in-group prototypes (i.e., represent the unique qualities that define the group and what it means to be a member of the group). Second, they must be in-group champions (i.e., advance and promote the core interests of the group). Third, they must be entrepreneurs of identity (i.e., bring people together by creating a shared sense of “we” and “us” within the group). Fourth and finally, effective leaders must be embedders of identity (i.e., develop structures that facilitate and embed shared understanding, coordination, and success). The initial study by Steffens and colleagues’ (2014) explored the identity-based leadership behaviors of team captains in a number of teams across four different team sports. The results suggested that the dimensions most related to the perceived leadership quality of the team captain were identity prototypicality and identity entrepreneurship. In addition, team confidence and task cohesion were also reported to be positively correlated with the captains’ leadership behavior.

An alternative approach that has been used to assess leadership structures and provision within teams is Social Network Analysis (SNA). SNA conceptualizes groups in terms of networks, consisting of nodes (representing the individual actors) and ties (representing the relationships between the actors; [Wasserman & Faust, 1994]; See Figure 25.1). This approach allows the researcher to move beyond team member self-perceptions and instead explore perceptions within the team at a global level. Over the past decade, SNA has yielded explanations for social phenomena in a wide variety of domains, including athlete leadership (Fransen, Van Puyenbroeck et al., 2015). The SNA approach has the potential to provide insights into the leadership structure within a team and more clarity on the importance of formal versus informal leaders. Furthermore, this approach is ideally suited to enhance our knowledge of specific leadership attributes (Fransen, Van Puyenbroeck, et al., 2015). The approach also allows for further examination of the antecedents and consequences of high-quality athlete leadership (e.g., Loughead et al., 2016).

Figure 25.1. Social Network Analysis: An Example of SNA Nodes and Ties