Leadership Network and Team Performance in Interactive Contests

TL;DR

This study investigates how centralized versus decentralized leadership affects cricket team performance, finding centralized leadership increases winning odds in one-day matches but not in Test cricket, with broader implications for team management.

Contribution

It applies social network analysis to cricket to empirically assess the impact of leadership structure on team success, highlighting the significance of leadership centralization.

Findings

Centralized leadership increases winning odds in one-day cricket by 30%.

No significant performance difference found between leadership types in Test cricket.

Results have implications for team management and leadership development.

Abstract

Over the years, the concept of leadership has experienced a paradigm shift - from solitary leader (centralized leadership) to de-centralized leadership or distributed leadership. This paper explores the idea that centralized leadership, as earlier suggested, negatively impacts team performance. I applied the hypothesis to cricket, a sport in which leaders play an important role in team's success. I generated batting partnership network and evaluated the central-most player in the team, applying tools of social network analysis. Analyzing 3420 matches in one day international cricket and 1979 Test matches involving 10 teams, I examined the impact of centralized leadership in outcome of a contest. I observed that the odds for winning a one day international match under centralized leadership is 30% higher than the odds for winning under de-centralized leadership. In both forms of cricket (Test and one day international ), I failed to find evidence that distributed leadership is associated with higher team performance. These results suggest important implications for cricket administrators in development and management of working teams.