|
COPYRIGHT 2006 University of South Alabama
Leadership has been assigned great importance in sport by athletes, coaches, and spectators (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). Despite the value placed on leadership, Riemer and Chelladurai (1995) noted that leadership research in sport has been sparse and sporadic. In fact, the majority of leadership research in sport has focused on the coach (see Chelladurai, 1994; Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998 for reviews). This is not surprising given that the coach is typically the one responsible for making final decisions in regard to several team matters (e.g., strategy, tactics, team personnel). Nonetheless, there is another important source of leadership within teams--the athletes. Gould, Hodge, Peterson, and Peflichkoff (1987) noted coaches believe athlete leadership to be an important component for effective team performance. Further to this, Glenn and Horn (1993) suggested that coaches require one or two athletes within the team who can provide motivation and direction to their teammates. Therefore, it is not surprising that coaches conventionally either have team elections or appoint an athlete to serve as captain (or assistant captain) in order to provide leadership to the team.
The designation of an athlete as captain may be viewed from a role perspective as fulfilling a formal function (Loughead & Hardy, 2005). A formal leader can be viewed as an individual who has been prescribed that position by the organization (e.g., coach) or group (e.g., team elections). However, the election or appointment of a formal leader does not ensure that the leadership provided will be effective or fulfill team leadership needs (Glenn & Horn, 1993). Mabry and Barnes (1980) identified another type of role that an individual can occupy within a group--informal role. An informal role (in this case an informal leader) emerges as a result of the interactions that occur among group members. Taken together, athletes who occupy either a formal or informal leadership role within their team represent a source of athlete leadership.
To date, research examining athlete leadership has mostly been descriptive in nature. Yukelson, Weinberg, Richardson, and Jackson (1983) examined the characteristics of collegiate athletes who were rated high as leaders compared to those rated lower in leadership status. The results showed that athletes scoring high in leadership status, as rated by their peers, tended to be better performers, had more seniority on their team, and had a greater internal locus of control than teammates who were rated low in leadership status. Another line of study in athlete leadership has been to examine the playing position of team captains (i.e., formal leaders). Lee, Coburn, and Partridge (1983) hypothesized that soccer players occupying a central playing position (i.e., center fullback, midfield) were more likely to be designated team captains since they occupied positions requiring high interactions with others. The results showed that for professional soccer teams, captains were more likely to occupy the center fullback position, whereas in high school teams, captains were more likely to be center fullbacks or midfielders. Taken together, the results indicated that captains were more likely to occupy central playing positions on soccer teams regardless of the level of competition. Finally, Tropp and Landers (1979) examined both formal and informal leadership in collegiate female field hockey players. Contrary to Lee et al., the results showed that captains were not as likely to be playing a high-interacting position (e.g., center halfback, center fullback).
Although previous research does provide some insights into athlete leadership, this body of literature does have its shortcomings. A first shortcoming has been the lack of a clear and consistent definition of athlete leadership. This lack of definitional clarity has led to inconsistent measurement of the construct, which in turn has led to research findings that cannot be compared to one another. In an attempt to remedy this situation, it may be beneficial to look at broader definitions of leadership. In fact, over the last five decades there have been approximately 65 different taxonomies used to define leadership (Fleishman, Mumford, Zaccaro, Levin, Korotkin, & Hein, 1991). Despite the various ways leadership has been conceptualized, Northouse (2001) identified several components that are central to leadership: (a) leadership is a process, (b) leadership involves influence, (c) leadership occurs within a group context, and (d) leadership involves goal attainment. Using these components, Northouse defined leadership as "a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal" (p. 3). Consequently, when leadership is defined in this manner, it becomes available to everyone, meaning that it is not restricted to only the formal designated leader(s) of a group (Northouse, 2001). That is, leadership not only involves formal leaders (e.g., coach, team captains) but also informal leaders--those individuals who are not designated as leaders by the organization and their role is not related to a formal position within the organization hierarchy (Neubert, 1999). Therefore, athlete leadership maybe viewed as an athlete occupying a formal or informal role within a team who influences a group of team members (i.e., a minimum of two team members) to achieve a common goal.
A second shortcoming of previous athlete leadership research has been to focus primarily on one function of the leadership role--task related functions. However, many researchers studying groups readily agree that leaders serve two important functions internal to the team: (a) task functions (e.g., helping the group accomplish its task objectives), and (b) social functions (e.g., satisfying member needs) (Carton, Hausenblas, & Eys, 2005; Kegler Hill, 2001; Rees, 1983). The notion that leaders can occupy specific and varying roles within a team, known as role differentiation, was examined by Rees and Segal (1984). They examined the two internal functions (i.e., task and social functions) of athlete leaders on two collegiate football teams. Overall, they found that all of the task leaders were starters, while the social leaders were equally divided between starters and non-starters. In addition, they found that task leaders were spread out amongst seniors, juniors, and sophomores, 33%, 56%, and 11% respectively and that social leaders were mostly seniors (90%).
Related to the above point, a third shortcoming is that research involving athlete leadership has focused almost exclusively on the...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
