When it comes to leadership roles—anything from head of household to king, these philosophers have taken rationality (the ability to reason well and act on it) as the driving force behind effective (functional) leadership. Thus, according to Aristotle, “the superior in virtue ought to rule” and the virtue of a ruler lies in the ability to be guided by rationality.  This same model of rational leadership was also earlier embraced by Socrates and Plato, especially in Plato’s Republic in which he argued that the philosopher (for him, the most reasonable person) should be king. 

What does such a leadership model portend in practical terms for team leadership in sports?  First, and foremost, it means that such leaders should be in control of their passions.  For example, losing one’s temper, throwing temper tantrums (never mind that some coaches are famous for it), is unacceptable.  This doesn’t mean that team leaders should have a flat affect or be docile.  Here the golden mean comes into play, which means that the effective leader will tend to avoid these extremes, neither over-reacting nor under-reacting, emotionally.  So a coach shouldn’t explode at a player’s failure to perform well; nor should he or she go in the opposite direction.  Helping players to see where they went wrong or could make improvements and encouraging them to perform better next time can be rational.

As I have pointed out in my previous blog, many performers tend to demand perfection and to assess their self-worth in terms of the quality of their performance. However, this can create needless and self-defeating stress. So a coach who damns a player who does not perform up to par feeds a fire that can eventually consume the player’s ability to perform well and, as a consequence, adversely affect team morale.

A good coach, according to this philosophical perspective, will therefore avoid frightening, intimidating, or degrading players. In short, such a coach will not exploit players’ cognitive vulnerabilities (irrational tendencies), thinking that this will make them perform better.  In fact, it is more likely to have the opposite result.

It is not that the tension of keen competition is a bad thing.  It is rather that feeding the needless stress of faulty thinking (especially, the self-defeating syndrome of demanding perfection/self-damnation) is a bad idea for a coach bent on winning.

Finally, rational leadership will tend to produce a relationship based on mutual respect. In the words of Immanuel Kant, the team leader will treat team members as “ends in themselves” rather than as “mere means.”  That is, a rational leader will show regard for team members as persons and not as objects to be manipulated, used, and abused for purposes of attaining victory.  In turn, these players will look to their leader for direction and support without fearing degradation and the loss of self-worth.  And this is a winning combination!

All the best,

Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D.

If you have any life problem questions or issues you'd like me to broach, you can post them as comments or email me at elliot.d.cohen@instituteofcriticalthinking.com