We need to think about why we call people leaders, and why we are invested in the belief that we should become leaders. It’s time to shift from prioritizing leadership to prioritizing coaction.*

Researchers have been seeking to define leadership for decades and there are endless educational materials about leadership. Leadership researchers and educators today have moved beyond trait-based leadership to the idea that leadership is about the impact that a person has on someone else. For example, according to the models of Transformational Leadership (Bass,1985; Burns, 1978; Downton, 1973) and Servant Leadership (Greenleaf, 1970), the leader is transformational or the leader is servant because of the way they interact with other people. Their followers feel inspired, feel cared for, and supported by them.

We have these models that modify the word leadership to make sure that we focus on what a leader is doing. Yet, we call a lot of people leaders who engage in a wide variety of behaviors that lead to a wide variety of impacts. We do not have to look hard in our society and in sport to identify people who are referred to as leaders (e.g. coaches, trainers, administrators) who enact a significant amount of harm on those they supposedly lead. For example, according to the 2020 Athlete Culture and Climate Survey conducted by the U.S. Center for SafeSport (2021), “Participants reported that sexual assault most often occurred with coaches, trainers, or another sport administrator, or an athlete peer” (p. 25). A quick Google search will demonstrate that this is a persistent and prevalent issue in sport. Yet, we continue to call them leaders because of the POSITION that they’re in, not because of the IMPACT, not because of the BEHAVIORS, but because they’re in a hierarchical position in which they have AUTHORITY OVER other people.

To say that leadership is about behaviors is aspirational, it’s not guaranteed. Rather, people are assigned positions of authority, which we often refer to as leadership positions. Ideally, they are assigned a position of authority due to their education, relevant experience, and the ways that they have effectively worked with and supported others. But again, this is not guaranteed. So, what is inherent to leadership is the HIERARCHY. The person is in a position of authority over others, not specific behaviors that benefit followers.

So why do we keep telling people that they need to be leaders? What we’re telling them is: “You need to obtain a position of authority” because in American society, hierarchy is familiar and highly valued. Meanwhile, we are not clarifying what we are expecting from someone when they are in a position of leadership. 

What if we stopped telling people that they should aspire to lead? If what we want is people who aim to have a positive impact on other people, to build cohesive and collaborative teams that work well together to achieve shared goals, aren’t we seeking COACTORS, not leaders?

According to the psychological theories Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and Polyvagal Theory (Porges, 1995), curiosity, connection, and motivation go hand in hand with a sense of safety and social support. 

So, instead of telling people to aspire to be leaders – dividing themselves from others by establishing themselves in a position over them – we could encourage one another to aspire to learn about one another and how we can best support each other.

In The Promises of Giants (2021), John Amaechi says, “People make choices. And those choices make culture” (p. 149). If we encourage people to become coactors, everybody is involved in co-creating the environment that they want to be a part of and that they want to provide for other people, so that everybody can be healthy and thrive.

Let’s focus on our interconnectedness and how we work together. We can all be coactors.

*Coaction was first proposed by Dr. Karen Suyemoto and Dr. Mary Ballou in 2007. I have dedicated my career to developing an interdisciplinary, integrated framework, the coactive process, to coach team members to engage in coaction. Learn more at https://jolinephd.com/

References

Amaechi, J. (2021). The promises of giants. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press. 

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row. 

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7_2

Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the revolutionary process. Free Press. 

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Robert K. Greenleaf Publishing Center.

Porges, S. W. (1995). Orienting in a defensive world: Mammalian modifications of our evolutionary heritage. A polyvagal theory. Psychophysiology, 32(4), 301-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1995.tb01213.x

U.S. Center For Safesport. (2021, July 14). 2020 Athlete culture & climate survey. https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/CultureClimateSurvey_ExternalReport_071421_Final.pdf