Leadership at RWC: What actions do Impactful and effctive team leaders perform on rugby’s biggest stage?

Halfway through the pool stages of Rugby World Cup 2023 and exciting results have been partnered with some interesting side stories. Obviously the highest profile rugby union competition creates high pressure environments, even for the greatest current crop of players yet how they handle this pressure and lead their teams to potential glory plays a big part as the tournament spans nearly two months. Leadership on and off the field have hit the news channels following some of the first week’s games, starting sadly with a foul mouthed rant from one of the premier fly-halves of the game currently.

Dan Biggar has come under fire from some of his former teammates and ex-Wales players after his outburst during the Rugby World Cup opener against Fiji. The veteran fly-half was outraged with his teammates for not getting the ball off the field quick enough before half-time of the closely fought Rugby World Cup Pool C match on Sunday. Biggar was furious and was overheard on the referee’s microphone screaming, “Get the ball off the park. Get the f***ing ball off the park” at George North.

Former Wales flanker Josh Navidi – who retired from professional rugby at the end of last season – said that he was not a fan of his former Wales and British & Lions teammate’s reaction. Navidi told BBC Scrum V’s podcast:

I personally don’t like it…You know you’ve made a mistake or you’ve knocked a ball on; you don’t need someone on your back screaming at you for no reason. I get the clock’s gone red and just put it out, but someone’s obviously passed the ball to him as well, so it’s just one of those situations that I’m not a massive fan of.

Another former Welsh International, Nicky Robinson, said that Biggar needs to be careful as to how he speaks to his teammates but added that he may have known how North would react.

Surely, Biggs knowns George North, and he knows how he’d react to that. Now if he thinks that George is going to be negatively affected by that, then Dan needs to be careful about how he speaks to certain players…At times, you need players on the pitch to do that; it does get players up. I know that can be negative to certain players, but also, that was a poor decision from George.

Interestingly, head coach Warren Gatland was also supportive of Biggar’s actions:

I didn’t have a problem with it. It’s about making people accountable…There’s nothing wrong with players in terms of challenging each other. We want that as part of the group so that everyone is accountable.

For me, that peer pressure is huge in terms of that and taking responsibility. Those sort of criticism aren’t personal. We talk about it being a point of care. It’s about the team getting better and individuals getting better because we need to be comfortable with being critical.

My question is was Biggar’s actions setting high standards or acting highly strung? Like identified, it was right before half time…could the conversation have waited for the private dressing room out of the public eye and shining a bigger spotlight than needed on Wales’ performance and how leaders of their team act towards fellow players?

Let’s compare this against story from the England camp; following their shock loss at home to Fiji in their last warm up game, the England players received “a rocket” from coach Kevin Sinfield which needed to happen according to England full back Freddie Stewart:

We had a very thorough review, which we needed, and we reaped the benefits against Argentina. It was necessary for that to happen.

That’s what makes Kev such a good defence coach – he’s so inspiring. He motivates us so much and he’s the sort of bloke you don’t want to let down.

That’s testament to him as a bloke. When you go out there, part of it is you do it for him. You don’t want to see a guy like that, who puts his heart and soul into us in his work with his defence, feel let down.

Kev is big on covering each other’s backs. That’s his big thing. He wants a defensive unit that are going to work incredibly hard for each other and, when it goes wrong, cover up for each other.

Sinfield also commented on the win and performance:

We saw lots of what we had seen in training against Argentina, which is pleasing, but I still feel there is so much in this team – so much improvement, so much growth

We saw a fight, a spirit and attitude that the people at home supporting us and in the ground would have loved to have seen, and for us as coaches that is particularly pleasing, (but) we know we need to be better.

Part of our challenge as coaches and part of the challenge of the playing group is to ensure this is not an anomaly, it is the start.

Now, let’s compare these ideas and reports vs Siya Kolisi’s comments and actions following their first game victory over Scotland. After the Springboks opened their William Webb Ellis title defence, head coach Jacques Nienaber was asked about fly-half Manie Libbok’s goal-kicking display after he missed three shots at goal. When asked if it was a concern, Nienaber was swift and to the point, simply replying, “Not if he wins Man of the Match.”

The question was not put to Kolisi, but he interjected later on in the conference to defend his teammate:

This question about missing kicks gets asked a lot, but we play as a team…Sometimes, you are not good at one thing on the day, but the way he attacked today and, how he took control and how he was a general amongst us. There are other guys who can kick.

He is not going to be good at everything every single day. We are working as a group.

The clip of Kolisi’s speech has gone viral across all social media platforms, with fans left in awe by the Bok captain’s leadership. However, how did Kolisi develop these skills or what does good or great leadership look like? Let’s start by looking at the research and understanding what types of leadership can be seen in sporting environments. Team environments offer layered complexities, having potentially multiple coaches, players and socially dynamic groups within so let’s explore how leadership strategies and roles of individuals and the team inside these groups affects cohesion and performance. What different styles modelled by different teams or countries affect the social dynamics of the group as well as team cohesion and success? Understanding these, let’s try and understand how does leadership and coaching influence each other….

Let’s start off by identifying what leadership is, especially in a sporting context; leadership defined is seen 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 or 4 main areas or on or field field functions being task related (tactical instruction), motivational leadership (offering team or group motivation), social functionality (team atmosphere) and external obligations (communication between management, media ect) (Fransen & Vanbeselaere (2014); Longhead, 2006). Northouse studies also advised of the components within leadership included processing and occurs in group context while involving influence and goal attainment. 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 the first 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. For a dynamic team sports context such as rugby union, whom and how should these different types of team leaders such as Kolisi or Biggar be identified and supported?

Formally appointed team leaders 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)…something that would be very difficult in team sports!! Team captains or formally appointed leaders such as Kolisi should be seen as important in all forms of leadership except social leadership (Fransen, 2015). Moran and Weiss (2006) recognised that coaches determined athlete leadership by playing ability whereas research found players highlighted the importance of psychosocial variables such as friendship quality and peer acceptance. Considering this and the ideas that 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, 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? How do we nod our head to over 100 years tradition yet find and develop leaders to suit modern day professional athletes?

Studies have shown Informal leaders or peer leaders like Biggar can complete functions that formally appointed leaders cannot. While coaches determine athlete leaders by playing ability, Fransen (2015) recognised the identified four important characteristics for athlete or peer leaders; high skill level, strong work ethic, advanced tactical knowledge and good rapport with teammates, many of these traits are identified or confirmed by Biggar’s teammates. Peer leaders are seen as influential on task related goals of the group as a whole and focus on team harmony and collective cohesion; for example, we discussed the ideas that for some skill based non negotiables, coaches step back and encourage the players to drive what is expected and acceptable, which I GUESS Biggar was trying to display during the Fiji game….

Recognising the areas of LSS, 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. 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) and can act as cultural arcitects of the team environment (Cotterill & Fransen, 2016). 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). Therefore, taking this in consideration, can a coach’s time such as Sinfield for England, Rassie Erasmus for South Africa or Gatland for Wales be spent identifying players like Kolisi or Biggar to translate their vision, helping develop task leaders through adopting principles of law of diffusion of innovation, or working out how to identify and develop leadership qualities?

Recent studies have shown transformational leadership styles, which look at the importance on the leader-follower relationship. Bass (1985) recognises this style of 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 laisses faire attitudes (Price, 2013). However, if levels of autonomy are not offered, player’s feelings are ignored or common team goals discounted, this could move into controlling or autocratic style, something Kolisi really refuted in his post game comments.

Current 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). Individualised consideration and inspirational motivation, dimensions of transformational leadership, are considered most decisive in determining effective athlete leaders from past research. 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.

So, where do we as coaches fit into this?? 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 coach’s 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. Leadership structure effects coaching practice which can greatly impact team effectiveness while 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. In attempting to gain impact in instruction or learning or becoming task focused, it may result in the coach adopting a controlling interpersonal style. 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?

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. I believe and have previously written that coach-athlete time should be focused on task cohesion and offering instructional input and autocratic direction whereas athlete leaders and peer leaders should concentrate on group involvement and input via democratic decision making social support and offering positive reinforcement in goal attainment. Will this diminish the perceived impact or effectiveness of the coach with individuals or groups as a whole?

Good teams recognised to have good leaders have strong social connectedness, which goes hand in hand with task leadership, as displays higher level of collective efficacy (Fransen, 2015). 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.