In a team activity done by experienced sportsmen, a democratic approach to leadership is probably the best. A democratic leader can be defined as someone who “only makes decisions after consulting the group.” (Wesson et al, 2005) It is probably the best option for a leader in a team sport that is getting played to a high level because decisions are made with everyone’s knowledgeable and experienced points of views taken into consideration. This is good as all players in an experienced team would have a valid opinion and therefore a democratic leader would often get the best out of his/her team’s ability. A leader of a team activity should also fall under the interactioalist theory as then he/she acquires all necessary skills and can apply them in a given situation. A good example of this kind of leader is Michael Vaughen in the ashes as he was able ask Andrew Struss and Andrew Flintoff for their opinions, these opinions were very valid as they were all captains of their own counties.
In racket sports generally a laissez faire style of leadership is most effective; a good example of this is the Davis Cup. In this event the leader cannot afford to be democratic or autocratic as he is not really familiar with his ‘team’ and does not know their specific ways of physically or mentally tackling competitions. It is also because all the players on the team are already disciplined and motivated to do well and are in some respects their own leader.
A successful leader in a racket sport is Patrick McEnroe, this is the man who lead the U.S.A. to victory in the Davis Cup. As I said earlier it was best he adopted a laissez faire style of leadership, he did so and the results where good.
All of the above examples of styles of leadership are done with experienced people, the same style of leadership would not be appropriate for inexperienced novices. Autocratic leadership would be the most suitable choice as inexperienced novices would not have the same discipline, knowledge or motivational drive towards the sport and they ideally would need to be dictated what to do. Autocratic leadership does just that. Autocratic leadership can be defined as “a leader that adopts a very authoritarian style generally based on strong rule structure. They tend to be very inflexible, make all the decisions and rarely get involved on a personal level with the group/team” (Wesson et al, 2005).
Autocratic leadership is also good for dangerous situations, as it prevents arguments within the team insuring a safe atmosphere as decisions are reached with no debates. An example of this is climbing as it is a high risk activity and sometimes can be done in quite large groups. Leaders of dangerous activities should come under the interactionlist theory as they possess the knowledge specific to the safe running of the dangerous activity; this would result in primarily saving lives.
A good example of a successful leader in a team sport is Martin Johnson. This is because he has all the required characteristics which include being motivational, determined, responsible, well respected, approachable, a good role model and having proven success. Martin Johnson is prescribed leader as he has been appointed a position were as Jonny Wilkinson is an emergent leader as he has not been appointed any specific position however he still has leadership qualities and uses them to motivate and encourage the team.
There are many theories behind leadership, one of which is the Great Man Theory (Carlyle, 1841). This theory conveys people are born with leadership characteristics and that the same leader can be effective in all situations. This is quite obviously not true as different characteristics are needed to lead different activities however some can be similar. After this more accurate theories arouse including the situationalist theory and the interactionilist theory, both spoken about above.
Without required leadership (Steiner, 1972) suggested this is a result of low motivation and moral within a team leading to potentially good players performing badly. An example of this is Chelsea premiership football team, all their player are of great potential however if they are not lead correctly their performances could be affected by the effects of ‘motivational and co-ordination’ problems such as personality clashes and players not used to playing with each other. The equation for this is:
TEAM SUCCESS = POTENTIAL FOR SUCCESS – CO-ORDINATION AND MOTIVATION PROBLEMS
Secondly without sufficient leadership the Ringleman effect and social loafing could occur, this is when sportsmen don’t put much effort into the task they are carrying out. The Ringleman effect as defined by Wesson et al, (2005) “as groups get bigger individual efforts deteriorate.”
Chelladurai (1980) states that “there are three factors that will affect the effectiveness of the leader; these are the relationship between the leaders personality, the group and the situation.” Three characteristics that affect the leader’s behaviour are the situation characteristics, the leader characteristics and the group member’s characteristics.
There are many factors that contribute to a good leader, one of the main factors is the style of leadership you choose to adopt as each style has better results in each individual, racket and team activities. In conclusion the factors which contribute to a good leader vary depending on the situation, the characteristics of the group and the characteristics of the leader. Equally the style adopted will also be influenced by these factors. A successful leader will be able to consider the whole group in order to direct the team to achieve their potential and become a successful team.
Word Count: 1,182
