By Michael Jorgensen
The current state of athlete leadership in sport
When someone says a team has great leadership, what is the first thing that comes to mind?
Do you envision a coach giving a passionate speech to motivate players before a game, a steadfast GM whose decisions have demonstrated both respect for the players and success for the franchise, or perhaps an athlete performing an extraordinary offensive feat to bring their team one step closer to victory? Though leadership can (and often does) come from the coach and administration, this top-down approach is probably not what you had in mind. Rather, you likely conjured up the latter image of a specific athlete. Reflecting on the leadership qualities they possess and the significant impact they had on their team.
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” 1
Athlete leadership is inextricably linked to a variety of positive outcomes relating to a team’s performance. For instance, athlete leaders can positively influence team cohesion, athlete satisfaction, team confidence, and the motivational climate within the team.2
The primary athlete leadership role is that of the Captain. Historically, the act of naming a captain is one of the oldest traditions in sport. Though the nature of the role may vary, the position commands significant reverence in the minds of fans and players alike. In his book The Captain Class, Sam Walker goes as far as to say that the captain is the most important factor for a team’s success. However, recent trends suggest a divergence from this style of leadership in sport.
Is the formal “Captain” role becoming a dated tradition?
To explore this further, we can look to recent changes in the NHL. Though in-season trades, the 2012/13 lockout, and league expansion are factors to consider, the 2010/11 was the last NHL season every team had named a captain. In fact, during the most recent NHL season (2018/19) approximately one in five teams did not name a captain. In some instances, these vacancies have existed across multiple seasons.
Although the Vegas Golden Knights have embraced many aspects of hockey culture since their inaugural season in the NHL (2017/18), the administration has refrained from stitching the symbolic “C” on the jersey of one of their players. Similarly, the Toronto Maple Leafs have not had a captain since early 2016 prior to trading Dion Phaneuf to the Ottawa Senators. Instead, both Toronto and Vegas have opted to run three alternate captains. When asked by TSN’s Bob McKenzie about potential candidates for the captaincy prior to the 2018/19 season, Leafs’ GM Kyle Dubas notes that,
“It’s a very important honor to be the captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs or any team that has a strong history. … The way that I look at it is, I want to get into it day to day with these people and see who’s best suited to handle that if we do determine that we need somebody to handle that. If we feel we have a void in leadership because we don’t have a formal captain, then it’s something that I think we can address. But I do think we have excellent leadership in the room.”
In a press conference kicking off the Leafs’ 2019/2020 pre-season training camp, Leafs’ President Brendan Shanahan comments that,
“Only one person is going to wear a ‘C’, but you need lots of captains. … You might be a leader on the ice, another guy might be the leader in the room, another guy might be the leader on the road, there’s nothing wrong with lots of leaders.”
With these comments, both Dubas and Shanahan acknowledge the historical significance of the team captain while highlighting the belief that leadership does not need to come from a single player. Their comments also touch on the idea of informal leaders by suggesting that effective leadership does not have to come from someone in the formal captain position. Rather, all players are encouraged to lead.
Other sport organizations have also become champions of this leadership from all approach. One particularly well-known example is the NBA’s Boston Celtics. Brad Stevens became the new Celtics head coach in 2014. This was also the last year the Celtics named a captain. Being the home of basketball legends such as Bill Russell, to some this change almost seemed an affront to the past captains and their efforts to build the franchise. However, Stevens’ rationale reflects a shared, or horizontal approach where each player is expected to contribute. In an early 2019 interview, Stevens comments,
“I’d say out of the 12 years that I’ve been a head coach we’ve rarely had them [captains]. And the reason being is that you want to empower everyone to add leadership within their own authentic way.”
Stevens goes on to say,
“If I name two or three people captains, inevitably you’re disempowering more than you’re empowering. And so, one of the things we try to do is say everybody’s a catalyst in their own way. We look at it more as catalysts than captains.”
Stevens’ leadership from all approach reflects a strategic division of labour among all players. Of course, not every player is responsible for calling plays during a game or for taking questions from the media. The question then becomes one of knowing who to assign what responsibilities. When we look at the research literature on the subject, some interesting suggestions are presented.
Early research on leadership and team dynamics in sport distinguished two types of athlete leaders based on their function: instrumental and expressive. Leaders with an instrumental function are focused on the accomplishments of the group tasks, while those who perform the expressive function concern themselves with interpersonal relationships. This was eventually extended to include an external function, where the leader communicated with the external team environment (e.g., media and sponsors). Recent research presents a model for leadership classification3. This model presents two primary leadership classifications, on-field and off-field, each with two sub-classifications. These sub-classifications and their descriptions are as follows:
On-Field
- The Task Leader is responsible for providing tactical instruction to their teammates
- The Motivational Leader is identified by being the greatest on-field motivator for the team
Off-Field
- The Social Leader maintains a positive good team atmosphere outside the field
- The External Leader is tasked with communicating with the club management, media, and sponsors
Effective fulfillment of the four leadership roles resulted in several positive team outcomes (e.g., higher team confidence). However, in only 2% of teams sampled, did the same athlete fulfill each of these roles3. Suggesting that different athletes typically assume each role. In addition, most teams identified the captain to be the most effective Task Leader and External Leader, though informal athletes were primarily identified as the Motivational Leader and Social Leader.2
So what does this all mean? Are we witnessing the death of the team captain role? That is unlikely. However, current research and recent trends in professional sport suggest a shift in the nature of the role and how we perceive it. Greater emphasis is being placed on informal leaders and teams are becoming increasingly aware of the many performance benefits of adopting a model of shared leadership. Most importantly, shared leadership empowers athletes.
- Loughead, T. M., Hardy, J., & Eys, M. A. (2006). The nature of athlete leadership. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29, 142–158.
- Cotterill, S. T., & Fransen, K. (2016) Athlete leadership in sport teams: Current understanding and future directions. Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9(1), 116-133.
- Fransen, K., Vanbeselaere, N., De Cuyper, B., Vande Broek, G., & Boen, F. (2014). The myth of the team captain as principal leader: Extending the athlete leadership classification within sport teams, Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(14), 1389-1397