In many facets of life, leadership is a hot commodity. We are often given the impression that you don’t have to be the best at what you do in order to inspire and motivate others. In sports, however, the concept of leadership can be more nuanced. Is it really about raising the performance of others around you, or is there more of a power dynamic involved? After all, not everyone can be leaders, right? So why do certain individuals ascend to positions of leadership, while others do not?

In his article titled “What Makes a Leader,” Daniel Goleman sought to determine which personal capabilities drove exceptional performance within organizations. He grouped capabilities into three categories, those being technical skills, cognitive abilities and emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence was found to be twice as important as the other capabilities for jobs at all levels.

I find emotional intelligence to be paramount in constructing the ideal leader, but believe that leadership positions are taken in a more complicated manner. Take a basketball team for example. Technical skills can be translated to raw abilities to perform the sport at a high level (the fundamentals like ball-handling, shooting, etc.). Knowledge of the game and situational awareness can suffice as cognitive abilities, and emotional intelligence can equate to being able to lift teammates up, being able to “galvanize the troops,” etc.

In this case, it is logical to think that the athlete who possesses the most emotional intelligence should be seen as the leader of the team. But oftentimes, there are situations in which people possess the emotional intelligence to lead a team, but may lack the technical ability in comparison to some of their teammates.

Unfortunately, the “captain” position (whether it is formally announced or not) is often given to the player that exhibits a high level of technical ability but severely lacks emotional intelligence to the point where resentment develops from their teammates. The emotionally intelligent player backs off for the greater good of the unit, not wanting to create any conflict. While this happens, the highly skilled player shows their technical superiority with just the right amount of ostentation so that any other prospective leaders are deterred from attempting to take on that role. The technically skilled player becomes the leader of the group, but deep down, his/her teammates know that the team is now lacking a true conductor.

This turn of events can lead to dysfunction within a team environment and a group of disgruntled athletes who find themselves wishing for better days. However, the ways in which leaders of a team lack emotional intelligence can vary. I have played on many teams where the most technically skilled player happens to be quieter in nature, choosing to lead by example and not ruffle any feathers, which is effective at times. Because that player is miles ahead of the others in terms of skill, they are deemed the unofficial leader of the team. While this isn’t necessarily a recipe for disaster like the previous example, it still doesn’t drive the “exceptional performance” that Goleman was looking for.

In contrast to Goleman’s findings, I don’t believe that emotional intelligence is the most vital component in becoming an undisputed leader. In order to gain the trust of a group, an individual must first be technically skilled enough to ward off any doubt that they aren’t fit for the role of being a leader, or that the position should be given to someone else (in the long run this becomes particularly important). But emotional intelligence comes at a close second. This individual should be comfortable in their own skin, and be able to uplift others without the worry that someone else will ascend above them, which is precisely why technical skill is of utmost importance.

American author and speaker John Maxwell said it best. “A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way.”