Leadership at the HIGHEST level: Who takes centre stage....??

Beautiful combination of timing and intrigue around this blog post…

I was approached by Pouria Nabi of UQ research team and someone whom is heavily involved in leadership research in soccer coaching in AUS. Pouria completed a Master of Philosophy (applied psychology in sports coaching) at The University of Queensland in 2016. The main focus of his MPhil research was on players’ motivation within the framework of self-determination theory (SDT), and autonomy-supportive learning environment in football. Following graduation, Pouria commenced his PhD in shared leadership within elite Australian sport teams. Pouria is research sub-committee of the Football Coaches Australia (FCA) and coaching in elite Australian football level as head coach. He approaches and discussed with me area about what do we know or what do we ASSUME in regards to team or group leadership. His research looked at different structures and ways coaches and athletes can work together to influence and contribute to the leadership tasks and processes. His presentation discussing his examination of shared athlete leadership in professional Australian soccer teams is shred on the video link below, which he prepared for ICCE Coaching Conference 2019 for in-depth explanation of his findings;. Thanks to Pouria for sharing and collaborating ideas for this blog post.

With these ideas in mind, what does these ideas towards shared leadership look like in very current HP example when looking at a review of RWC performance? I was looking into the IRFU’s review into the 2019 Rugby World Cup, where IRFU performance director David Nucifora is quoted saying the union’s review into Ireland’s poor performance at the 2019 World Cup has pinpointed a failure to develop their style of play, a lack of focus on hosts Japan, psychological shortcomings and the need to continue developing Irish players’ skill-sets as the key lessons.

Let’s dive into the potential psychological shortcomings as a coaching cohort and see what that could possibly mean for a HP group…Where does the fault lie for group leadership or Ireland’s squad shortcomings as mentioned? Rory Best believed that Ireland’s World Cup meltdown in Japan was impacted by “too much detail” from the coaching group creating “too much tension” in the camp leading up to games. The now retired captain also cites “complacency” when revealing a clearer picture of how the national team’s fortunes went so badly askew in 2019. Speaking at a sponsored event earlier this month, Best said:

“The great thing about 2018 (Ireland’s strong season) was we had our own voice and our own mind. There was that freedom at the end of the week to step into a space to lead. You can’t just turn up at the Aviva stadium at five o’clock ‘Right, it’s our turn to lead.’ You can get a bit lost.

I think in 2019 that end of the week space started to be filled a bit much with coaches.”

The mentioned player driven approach, which was initially accepted by Schmidt, was abandoned, to Best’s regret, between the Scotland and Japan games at the World Cup, and there followed over complicated preparations before the 46-14 quarter-final defeat to New Zealand in Tokyo. So what does leadership styles and roles within team environments look like at the highest levels? Like mentioned by Pouria, team environments offer layered complexities, having potentially multiple coaches, players and socially dynamic groups within so I wanted to discuss or explore how leadership strategies and roles towards individuals and the team within these groups affects cohesion and performance, considering social dynamics of the group as well as team cohesion and perceived success.

Leadership is seen and defined as the process whereby an individual influences a group to achieve a common goal (Loughead, 2005); leaders within team environments have been seen to drive and coordinate 3 main areas or functions being task related, social functionality and external obligations (Longhead, 2006). Within team environments, we can find different forms of leadership forming through formally appointed leadership roles, informal leadership and/or peer leadership roles, whereby a person may only effect 2 or more people within the group yet their actions or input leads to influence of others. Looking at Leadership Scale for Sports (Chelladurai, 1980), within these 3 functioning areas of task, social or external, it looks at which areas players look for leadership within. These areas include training and instruction, democratic behaviour, autocratic behaviour, social support and positive feedback. As mentioned, being that there are many different types of leaders within team environments, the responsibility or acknowledgement of whom shall lead each of these areas has been investigated for effectiveness and should be continued to do so in differing team environments. So, which role should Schmidt have taken, offered or have been most effective at RWC 2019??

Normally, formally appointed team leaders such as Best need to display athletic ability and be “veterans” of the side involved in, usually 3 years or greater, to gain the acknowledgement of 50% or more of the group required to have influence on the goals attempting to achieve (Longhead, 2006)….tick for many of these boxes. Team captains or formally appointed leaders should be seen as important in all forms of leadership except social leadership (Fransen, 2015). As players see and need to feel these appointed athletes are the link to coaches/management of their sides by having the consensus of their team goals within different areas, one of my questions is why are these positions appointed by management as opposed to elected by team mates or co-players? Would this result in greater cohesion or would only the popular or outspoken rise to positions of leadership, ignoring possible traits of leadership within certain individuals? These may be areas which have been tiptoed around by Best and Ireland’s RWC review….

Studies have shown Informal leaders or peer leaders can complete functions that formally appointed leaders cannot. Peer leaders are seen as influential on task related goals of the group as a whole and focus on team harmony and collective cohesion. These leaders offer greater impact around areas such as social support, positive feedback and can offer democratic decision making dependent on when situation requires them and to as small or large a group within the team as opposed to the when’s and whom by which expectations or protocol sets, areas that Schmidt and co possibly should have focused on and allowed playing members to offer social and emotional support. Athlete or peer leaders engaged in social behaviours positively influence team cohesion and performance as a result (Vincer, 2010) as social cohesion has shown stronger link with performance than task cohesion (Jowett, 2004). These informal leaders are recognised by certain recognised traits, most notably skill level amongst the playing group, the strongest index of peer leadership (Glenn & Horn 1993). Moran and Weiss (2006) also recognised peer leaders have higher perceived levels of competence and increased ability for expressiveness. A positive relationship has been demonstrated between the presence of athlete leaders and team outcomes such as player satisfaction, team cohesion, confidence and performance (Fransen, 2015). Research such as Pouria’s recognise informal or team adopted or elected leaders can have a greater level of impact with individuals and smaller groups and part of coach’s requirements and player’s expectations of them shall be to allow these groups to be explored, found and developed by the group and for coaches to identify and teach required skills whether they be acting for task, social or external functions. I believe it’s these ideas Best was relating to when discussing how the playing group could have and should have taken more control on the build up to game day, utilising social connection to ultimately build player satisfaction, team cohesion, confidence and performance

I want to question and understand can a coach’s time be better spent identifying players to translate their vision, helping develop task leaders through adopting principles of law of diffusion of innovation? Could Schmidt have focused on offering certain players roles for greater impact within playing group? Bass (1985) recognises this style of transformational leadership as the ability to inspire and motivate followers to exceed performance expectations by shaping follower’s beliefs and attitudes. This form of leadership can be developed by inspiration or motivation to team members, through creating a vision of common goals, idealising influence through modelling behaviours or values, individualising consideration, through allowing for other’s needs and feelings and intellectual stimulation through encouraging creativity. Combined with transactional leadership style, which is combining contingent rewards and corrective actions, the optimal leadership state is recognised as more frequent transformational and transactional leadership adopted styles, combined with laissez-faire attitudes (Price, 2013). However, if levels of autonomy are not offered as suggested from Ireland’s RWC2019 review, player’s feelings are ignored or common team goals discounted, this could move into controlling or autocratic style.

Previous studies have also addressed peer transformational behaviours and leadership style is related to group cohesion and collective efficiency; this is created by idealised influence by leading by example, showing optimism regarding team collective goals and setting high standards while acknowledging the needs of others and gaining cooperation through sacrifice (Bass & Avolio 1994). However, peer leadership behaviours can be overshadowed by coach leadership behaviours in relation to individual outcomes such as perceived competence and goal attainment. This offers greater weight to the ideas that the relationship of peer and co-player leadership in offering group social support and continual positive feedback whereas coaches need to focus on individual development and progression. However, without the formal setting of leaders within the groups, how shall all the areas of leadership be covered? Would the players become task, social or external focused without formal appointments of management or the direction of some autocratic leadership by the coach?

Mageau and Vallerand (2003) recognised the athlete’s relationship with the coach as ultimately one of the most important determinants of the athlete’s motivation. However, the actions of the coach are relatively less important than how an athlete perceives, interprets and evaluates a coach’s behaviours (Horn; 2002). Therefore, the act of coach leadership where by coaches create a process of influence dependent on and constructed by interpersonal relationship between the coach and athlete (Vella, 2010) could be seen as both extremely volatile and fragile relationship for the coaching and success outcomes to be solely dependent on. Coaching success stems around the competence, confidence, connection and character developed of the athlete as a result of the coach-player relations yet coach adopted transformational leadership styles would result in positive intrinsic motivations and increased athlete effort. However, in attempting to gain impact in instruction or learning or becoming task focused may result in the coach adopting a controlling interpersonal style, suggested during the review by Best. Adopting this style puts pressure on the players to act, think and feel in a way consistent to the needs and wants of the coach (Amorose, 2015). In developing levels of control through power assertive techniques forcing player compliance and using social comparison for evaluation, would adopting these leadership styles for task functions while allowing player or peer leaders to satisfy individual player social relatedness and perceived group autonomy gain suitable levels of satisfaction and group cohesion? I believe and research supports how autocratic behaviours adopted in an attempt to control HP players can have negative outcomes and how these are perceived by the players, effecting areas such as motivation, connection to group/team and performance.

Studies have shown that athlete satisfaction is related to the degree to which athletes understand their role and responsibilities within interactive sports teams. (Eys, 2007). Jowett and Balduck’s research indicated that athlete’s social network was a major contributing factor to performance accomplishments (Balduck, 2011). Recent studies recognised high levels of individual’s intrinsic motivations when coaches exhibit a leadership style that empathised training and instructional behaviours while exhibiting democratic behaviour rather than autocratic leadership styles (Amorose, 2007). Therefore, collective cohesion and team success should be seen as leadership driven and responsibility for all team members. Research such as Pouria’s shared leadership ideas has strengthened my beliefs that good teams are recognised to have good leaders whom have strong social connectedness, which goes hand in hand with task leadership. The quality of social support received is critical to group success and player satisfaction; while important to receive social support from coach-athlete relationship, the increased pressure to ensure the player does not let down their parts within the relationship can lower autonomy and intrinsic motivation through perceived controlling behaviours. Therefore, the leadership dynamics and coach’s willingness to allow player leaders to be identified, creating connected individuals and responsibility being distributed amongst the group through social networking is important within team dynamics, something that was probably missing throughout Ireland’s unsuccessful RWC2019 campaign. Throughout my research and listening to fellows such as Pouria’s research, I have developed beliefs and philosophies surrounding the necessity to develop player and peer leaders within elite rugby settings to satisfy motivational aspects of the players while ensuring they develop sense of meaningful connections and relatedness. Food for thought for IRFU and Andy Farrell going forward…..