Image depicting a group of red pins (representing the team) standing in front of a single dark brown pin (representing the leader)
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash
Disclaimer: The content of this blog post is intended for informational purposes only. It should not be used as a substitute for professional and/or mental health advice.
Leadership, in its many forms, doesn’t really have a set template. As a result, it can be difficult to define.
If you ask me, I would describe leadership as the practice of pragmatic decision-making – to achieve a set goal – that is channelled through a vessel that displays a personal, human touch.
At least, that is how I would describe effective leadership.
The qualities of an effective leader are not necessarily set in stone. Yet, people often have strong opinions about the qualities of an effective leader.
This juxtaposition makes for an interesting discussion.
Throughout our lives we come across various leaders. In some cases, we ourselves become those leaders.
But, if there isn’t a clear-cut, one-size-fits-all mould for potential leaders to stick to, how can someone learn and embody the qualities of an effective leader?
In this article, I will provide my thoughts on what I believe makes a great leader by interrogating this query through the lens of cricket.
Cricket offers a perfect model of what bad, good, and great leadership can be, and the duties and distractions that come with this position.
As mentioned in my previous post, ‘Life Lessons Cricket Can Teach Us (My Top 6)’, cricket is as much a team sport as it is an individual game. It is also a highly strategic game spanning multiple hours and days.
So when you don’t do well, both as a leader and as a team, it becomes very easy to notice. The fans, pundits, and media bay for blood – starting with the captain’s.
With that said, let’s get into it.
Quality 1. Knowing your stuff
Before taking on any leadership role you have to ask yourself:
- ‘Am I aware of what I am getting myself into, and do I know this game well enough?’
- ‘Does leadership come naturally to me?’
Obviously none of us will ever be granted a position of authority in a field we know nothing about. But sometimes it can be tempting to chase a leadership role purely for the title and acclaim.
Other times, a leadership position may land on our laps unexpectedly when we are not ready for such a responsibility.
Experience in your chosen subject area is the cushion you fall back on when the heat is on
In the world of cricket, the captain, first and foremost, is a player who is sure of their place in the side. Secondly, they are typically someone who has behind them ample playing experience.
Occasionally, the captain is someone who, before their official appointment, had already exhibited leadership potential in some way.
These are usually the prerequisites because it gives you grounding for the toughest moments the game can throw at you. When the going gets tough, having a strong foundation of knowledge in your subject area to turn to – in this case cricket – is imperative.
I mean, the last thing you want to be is a deer in the headlights when everyone looks to you for a solution.
Knowledge in cricket is multifaceted.
On the field, it involves assessing pitch conditions, devising solid yet adaptable strategic plays, and having situational awareness with the bat and ball. It involves an understanding of the ebbs and flows a cricket match has.
Off the field, it is the recognition of that fact that you are not just looking after yourself any longer. Instead, you are watching over 10 other players and attempting to get the best out of them – mentally and physically.
Additionally, it is having the awareness that things will not always be rosy with your teammates, the media, or the public.
In a nutshell, leadership in cricket needs to be addressed holistically. As such, the personality that is able to rise to the occasion amidst all these prospective complications, often occurring concurrently, is the one that is best suited for captaincy.
From my experience in the ‘real world’, the same is also true. Leadership in the office extends beyond the day-to-day tasks outlined in the boilerplate job description; it is the sum total of all that plus the skills which come with being a leader.
Without that firm footing and experience behind you, leadership can be daunting.
Image showing a group of people in an office. One member of the team is presenting and teaching the others about a specific topic
Photo by Jason Goodman on Unsplash
Harnessing the power of the ‘natural leader’
The section above presents one side of the captaincy coin – the path one takes when choosing the most reliable and safe option to lead. Someone who has done the time and is now prepared and ready for higher honours.
But what are the pros of someone who seems to be a ‘natural’? What are the upsides to a leader who has a proclivity towards going beyond, or even away from, the basic subject area and really think outside of the box?
There are shades of gray to leadership, especially so in cricket.
The game is known to throw up a maverick or a tactical genius from time to time – someone that just seems to ‘get it’. Whether that is in strategising, forward thinking, or invigorating the troops, these people are born with an innate sense of leadership others simply lack.
Most recently, Ben Stokes has demonstrated this quality in spades as captain of the English Men’s Test team, transforming a side with similar personnel from a prior, troubled regime.
His tactical shrewdness, at times going against convention, and natural affinity for leading from the front has proven to be a game-changer for England.
For more on this, check out Part 1 of the ‘Bazball, Test Cricket’s Modern Enigma’ feature series. And if you are interested in my full take on ‘Bazball’ thus far, be sure to read Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 also.
Another example of an exceptionally natural and gifted leader is ex-Indian captain, MS Dhoni, who was first given the position out of the blue. As it turned out, the man had the ‘Midas touch’; wherever he went as captain, trophies followed (8, to be exact).
Image showing a figure in blue (natural leader) guiding a figure in yellow (team member) up a mountain to reach a flag
Icon made by Becris from www.flaticon.com
Natural leaders can be a source of both envy and awe, frequently marching to the beat of their own drum. To their rivals and contemporaries, the natural leader always seems to be a step or two ahead.
It makes the competitors question why they are unable to see things the way the natural leader does, and why they cannot get to those places mentally as quickly as the natural leader can.
In contrast, the team will hang on the natural leader’s every word, gaining inspiration from their extraordinary conceptualising abilities and tactical nous. Natural leaders have it in them to drastically and rapidly alter the trajectory of a team’s fortunes once they have the buy-in of their team.
The effortlessness and ease with which natural leaders operate, at least outwardly, can be frustrating for those who cannot match that.
If I have learned one thing from watching and playing cricket, as well as working in the office, it is that sometimes you just have to take a step back, admire, and accept what a natural leader can do.
Choosing the ideal candidate for a leadership position can therefore, paradoxically, be both straightforward and tricky.
Do you want the reliable and safe bet who churns out guaranteed results, or the individual capable of something extraordinary and out of the ordinary?
In summary, subject area knowledge and the astuteness that comes with that is a quality of an effective leader. And if they have a rare stroke of genius about them to boot, that is a bonus.
Quality 2. Emotional intelligence
People often debate what the difference between a leader and a boss is.
In today’s corporate world with intertwined chains of command and little in-person time with the ‘big dogs’ and ‘head honchos’ for the everyday worker, the line between a genuine leader and a boss can be blurred.
My take on it?
For me, a leader is someone that unifies their team members and instils a culture and value system everyone buys into – including the leader – as part of a bigger picture.
On the other hand, a boss is someone that primarily calls the shots from the top, with an interest only in how the final product looks. They may be excellent at their job and yield incredible results, but they lack a relatability, affability, and personal connection with their ‘subordinates’ a leader does not.
Essentially, a leader possesses an emotional intelligence that a boss may not always have.
What does emotional intelligence involve?
The term emotional intelligence was first used in 1990 by 2 researchers, John Mayer and Peter Salovey. It was later made more fashionable by psychologist, Daniel Goleman, who discussed emotional intelligence in his 1995 book, ‘Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ’.
When you look at different sources and models online, you will see stated a variety of competencies that make up emotional intelligence. For the purpose of this article, I will summarise the 4 most common traits I came across (and what each entails):
- Self-awareness: being cognisant of your own thoughts and emotions
- Self-regulation: being able to adjust and modulate your own thoughts and emotions as your situation changes
- Empathy: being able to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and understand their thoughts and emotions
- Social skills/relationship management: being proficient at building and maintaining relationships through clear communication
These competencies appear easy to execute, but the true test comes when the pressure is on. As with anything, what separates the good from the great is the ability to uphold one’s values and execute skills under intense scrutiny.
Often times, given we are all human, the pressure is what causes us to fall short.
So it is clear what emotional intelligence means from the point of view of the leader. But what impact does this quality have on the team itself?
Icon depicting emotional intelligence and the recognition of different moods
Icon made by Parzival’ 1997 from www.flaticon.com
Emotionally intelligent leadership isn’t about being ‘liked’ as a leader, but is about creating an environment that fosters mutual trust and respect – especially when the pressure is on
In cricketing circles, 3 captains have displayed emotional intelligence better than most (in my opinion): Sir Clive Lloyd, Graeme Smith, and Ben Stokes.
Lloyd was able to amalgamate the cricketing might from across 15 small constituent nations of the Caribbean – each with their native peoples and authentic culture.
When presented with this challenge, Lloyd saw that he needed to treat each player uniquely and with the individual respect they deserved. He needed to ensure each player felt welcomed and valued for who they were.
Through his impeccable people skills, tutelage, and stewardship, Lloyd set the West Indies on a path to utter domination for nearly 20 years.
Smith oversaw South Africa’s most fruitful period in Test history. It is no secret South African cricket has historically been marred by off-field controversies.
Furthermore, the sporting isolation of the Rainbow Nation during the apartheid regime has given rise to an almost unspoken healing process has been ever-present since their return to international cricket in 1991.
However, when Smith launched his ‘ProteaFire’ initiative in 2010, he united his team in a way that embraced all races and upbringings. He understood that a value system was crucial to forging an unbreakable bond and team spirit.
Consequently, this commitment to championing each other despite their hardships bred a steely determination and resilience within the team.
In Stokes’ case, his emotional intelligence likely stemmed from his formative years as a person and as a cricketer. He has been outspoken about his own mental health issues, outlining that the management of his anxiety and panic attacks is “an ongoing process”.
Also well documented was his close relationship with his late father, Gerard, who passed away in 2020 from brain cancer.
Collectively, I strongly feel these experiences shaped the captain, and unquestionably the person, Stokes became.
Sir Clive Lloyd (pictured in the middle) displayed immense emotional intelligence as a captain of the West Indies cricket team in the 1970s and 1980s
“PCTBC Official Re-opening 2011” by AlanM04 is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
In cricket, studying the game and understanding its technical and tactical nuances is vital. But equally important is the willingness to recognise your players for the human beings they are.
This means spending time with each member of your team, as Lloyd did, and getting to know them more personally – as more of a human versus a tool to complete a particular task. It can mean offering different perspectives to alleviate their fear of failure, and helping them to bring out more of their real selves (particularly when they are in the infancy of their career).
By doing this sort of work early, it lays the groundwork for honest discussions later on if one of the team goes through a tough time in performance or personally.
When I was the captain of a couple of cricket teams back in the day, this was the thing I took most seriously because it was what helped generate unity.
Subsequently, when we achieved some unbelievable highs, I knew it was an achievement we secured as a bona fide team. To me, that gave me the greatest sense of satisfaction as the captain.
None of this is a case of trying to be ‘liked’. Instead, it is a case of ensuring both parties understand that there is a mutual respect and trust at play, and that we all have one another’s backs when the storm hits.
Remember, you may wear the captain’s armband. But without that mutual respect and trust, there is no team in the truest sense of the word. And with no team, that leadership position becomes redundant.
Given this, emotional intelligence is certainly a quality of an effective leader. Knowing the subject area is half the battle, and knowing your people is the other half.
Quality 3. Appraisal and accountability
With the responsibility of leadership comes the need for honesty and transparency. Honesty in assessing the good and the bad, and the transparency in calling out why something is good or bad.
In the absence of such openness, it is unlikely that a team will evolve. It also increases the likelihood of coasting which encourages stagnancy.
Situations like this end up being a disservice to the leader, who is probably capable of much more, but also to the team that deserves a leader that strives to ‘level up’ all parties.
Whether you like it or not, the buck stops with the leader – even in a collaborative environment
Organisational and hierarchical structures make it very easy to point the finger because there is always someone who is in charge of a designated function.
With more responsibility, that spotlight intensifies.
But in today’s more collaborative culture, leaders are more likely to fraternise with their teammates. Very often, decisions are made by committee after the leader has heard the views of the team first, as opposed to making unilateral decisions.
Environments like this can get quite ‘chilled out’, with the lines of responsibility quickly morphing into tight ropes that are difficult to walk.
However, when things go wrong following a decision – be it one made by committee or unilaterally – the only person in the firing line will be you as the designated leader on paper.
Cricket is a prime example of this.
No matter how much success or defeat a team has, it is always the captain that has to front up at the post-match interviews or to the media. They are the ones who are ridiculed and questioned in the papers the next day if the team crashes to a heavy defeat.
Behind closed doors the decisions made in the dressing rooms may have been collaborative to boost team morale. But the harsh reality is that when something goes awry, everyone will want to know who to talk to.
As a captain and a leader, that will be you.
Therefore, it is important to remember that no matter how close you might be with your team and how much they contribute to collective team decisions, the buck will inevitably still stop with you as the leader if the positive results dry up.
A great leader is able to reconcile this and balance collective goodwill with personal accountability as the person in charge.
So, it doesn’t matter if you are an old-school, tough and gnarly captain like Ian Chappell or Allan Border, or the ‘everyman’ of today like Ben Stokes or Pat Cummins – at the end of the day, the captain is the captain.
Don’t forget that.
A distressed man with his face in his hands, possibly after receiving some bad news
Photo by Christian Erfurt on Unsplash
Praise in public, criticise in private
A large part of leadership is recognising both success and failure.
But an extension of that is knowing when to issue appropriate acclaim (for success) or constructive criticism (for failure) to the specific individuals who influenced these outcomes.
How you choose to do this can be a delicate dance.
A lot of the best leaders in cricket are vocal when it comes to giving praise to a player. They want the player, as well as the supporters, to know their contributions have been valued and not gone unnoticed.
This is particularly important because it can boost the player’s confidence and reinforce self-belief. It helps them believe that they can deliver the goods again in the future.
That said, when the captains are asked about the positives regarding the team as a whole they can, at times, remain coy with their response. While a lot of captains appreciate an accomplishment following a specific match or series, they often maintain a level-headedness about matters.
Why?
Perhaps it is to ensure the team does not become too cocky with a solitary win. Or maybe it is to subtly acknowledge that a single victory is not the be all and end all, and that the team should still be inspired to push through barriers and venture out of comfort zones.
In terms of critiquing, this is where, I believe, the path chosen can have profound lasting effects on an individual and a team.
Captains very rarely, if ever, lambast a player openly when they have had a bad game.
Firstly, it can be interpreted as a form of public shaming – an invitation for the masses to point and laugh. Focussing on a single individual within a team game when expressing criticism may also give the false sense that the loss happened because of that one person.
Secondly, it can draw the unwanted attention of opposition players and naysayers, providing them with ammunition moving forward.
For the specific player under the pump, sure, they will realise that the words of the captain ring true.
However, depending on the type of personality the player has, the delivery of criticism in such a public manner can cause their morale to take a major hit, as well as invoke a new fear of failure when playing.
This sort of collateral damage from ill-delivered feedback can easily snowball as time goes on, reducing the output of the player as well as the overall success of the team.
So, even though the content of a piece of criticism may be just and on point, its ability to kickstart the betterment of the player is contingent upon how it is delivered.
That is why we rarely hear such pointed comments openly from cricket captains, but then later on the player in question, often in interview, will describe how “honest conversations were had behind closed doors”, or words to that effect.
Some leaders may like to take on a more hard-nosed, tough love style of delivering feedback. As mentioned at the beginning of this article, there is no one correct way to lead.
Nevertheless, providing constructive criticism (with the desired, focused take-home message for the recipient) whilst mitigating collateral damage is critical for the sustainability of a successful working relationship and team dynamic.
To conclude, appraisal and accountability, and the means by which these are executed, are highly important qualities of an effective leader. Without it, a working environment becomes a breeding ground for complacency and stagnation.
Quality 4. Having a clear vision
Attributing the success of a team to something is always difficult. With so many moving parts at play, success rarely, if ever, is underpinned by a single thing.
This also explains why every team is not wildly successful because if there was a solitary recipe for success, every one would have it.
However, success does often begin with a singular vision.
In cricket, a team typically plays in their captain’s image (something I discuss in Part 1 of the ‘Bazball, Test Cricket’s Modern Enigma’ feature series). The sport’s most successful leaders have traditionally imprinted upon the team a clear vision of how they envisage the team to play – referred to in cricketing jargon as a ‘brand of cricket’.
Why is having a clear, defined vision such a big deal?
A clear, singular vision from a leader serves as a blueprint for the team to follow with assurance
A lot of people come into a leadership position in the wake of another person’s tenure.
Sometimes it comes at a time when the predecessor voluntarily steps away despite being successful.
Other times, a new leader is warranted when a staleness creeps in under the watch of the previous one.
Whatever the reason, the onus is on the current leader to shake things up and to lead with their vision.
It is easy to conform to a tried and tested template laid out during a previous establishment, especially if it yielded success. And given the saying ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’, it is understandable if a budding leader is hesitant to voice any bold suggestions that might overhaul remnants of a past regime.
But if international cricket has proven anything, it is that there is always room to take any team a step further.
Throughout its history, cricket’s strongest teams have all played with definitive styles which can normally be traced back to the captain.
Virat Kohli’s determination to improve India’s fast bowlers and his desire to fortify the mindset of his team went a long way to their success in the Test format between 2018 and 2021
“Virat Kohli (Ind vs NZ)” by Times Of India is licensed under CC BY 3.0
For example, Graeme Smith’s South Africa characterised ‘resilience and adaptability’, two of Smith’s greatest strengths as a batter and as a leader. He transformed an already solid outfit into world-beaters in the Test arena.
Steve Waugh’s Australia personified ‘ruthlessness’, the hallmark trait of Waugh himself. When he took over the reigns from Mark Taylor in 1999, Australia were already at the top of the tree. But this wasn’t good enough for Waugh, who sought to push his Australian team to become totally uncompromising against all teams, home and away.
Virat Kohli’s India exuded ‘tenacity’, a characteristic Kohli, to this day, oozes arguably more than any other. His commitment to improving India’s fast-bowling stocks, as well as to hardening up individuals to the hostilities of away tours, gave the team an edge that had not been seen before.
And so on.
Pitching a vision to a team is one thing. But when you, as a leader, continue to breathe life into it and sell it with the utmost conviction through words and actions, that is when the rest of the team will naturally follow with trust and confidence.
Any team will always have a common goal. But to achieve this common goal, the individuals within the team will inevitably have particular day-to-day duties to fulfil.
In time, this unanimous buy-in to a joint vision will help each member of the team more clearly find their specific role and purpose in this collective journey to the top.
Strong visions are often rooted in a mix of optimism and realism
Everyone’s goal, in an ideal world, is to shoot for the stars. In many ways, adopting this mentality will motivate us to push our limits and continue to set personal bests.
However, at times, complementing this idealism with a dose of realism may be necessary.
An interesting angle in cricket is that the vision of a captain is commonly a product of circumstance and the reality of things around the team.
What do I mean by this?
A purely idealistic captain might say that anything is possible in an attempt to motivate. But a realistic, yet optimistic, leader will understand that certain factors, such as the team’s personnel and their quality, as well as the era or landscape in which they find themselves, will dictate how they want to play.
Now, setting these guardrails does not mean the potential outputs are reduced. It just means that there is a degree of self-awareness and a transparency in acknowledging the reality of the situation.
I believe that injecting a little realism into an overarching, optimistic vision can light the fire under the team to now chase lofty, yet achievable, goals.
As the proverb goes, “the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long.”
This might help to explain why a captain’s vision and the exploits of that team never last forever. It is usually a response to the demands and questions posed at a particular point in time, and something that is not necessarily intended to be carried on indefinitely.
But while it is in effect, however long that may be, a crystal-clear vision can focus and elevate a side. Because of this, the ability to bring a strong vision to the table is a quality of an effective leader.
Someone with an illuminated light bulb in their hands, used to symbolise a bright new idea
Photo by Riccardo Annandale on Unsplash
Concluding remarks
I mentioned at the beginning of this article that leadership isn’t an exact science.
In my experience of observing and playing under cricket captains, and even working for leaders in an office setting, a number of qualities that have made them all effective have continued to crop up.
Furthermore, in the leadership roles I have held as a cricket captain or in a traditional office, I have noticed several overarching traits that brought out the best in my teams.
These are the qualities I have outlined here in this piece.
There are a lot of good leaders out there. Some of them are great.
If you take one thing from this article, it is to keep an open mind. If you possess an innate flair for achieving the remarkable, awesome. Alternatively, if your strengths lie in diligent preparation and the comforts of familiarity on the back of years of experience, that is awesome too.
And if your leadership style is something else altogether, embrace it.
Every leader should look to do it ‘their way’. No-one wants a pretender.
Icon attributions:
Icon made by Becris from www.flaticon.com <a href=”https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/leadership” title=”leadership icons”>Leadership icons created by Becris – Flaticon</a>
Icon made by Parzival’ 1997 from www.flaticon.com <a href=”https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/emotional-intelligence” title=”emotional-intelligence icons”>Emotional-intelligence icons created by Parzival’ 1997 – Flaticon</a>
Icon made by wanicon from www.flaticon.com <a href=”https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/fear” title=”fear icons”>Fear icons created by wanicon – Flaticon</a>
DISCLAIMER
The posts published on this blog are intended simply to provide some food for thought for fellow cricket fans across the world. This is a place which respects and enjoys all cricketers from all nations and, as such, does NOT aim to solely vilify any specific person or team.
Differing opinions and lively debates are more than welcome. However, personal attacks and abuse of any kind will NOT be tolerated here.
Thanks for your understanding.
Insightful thoughts on leadership. 🙂
That were some really good points in your post. Thank you for sharing 🤗
I totally agree that you’ve discussed some of the most critical aspects of leadership in this post. Awesome read indeed!