Introduction
This article aims to explore the discursive processes through which leadership is accomplished collectively among the coaches in a professional football team. In line with recent developments in leadership research, we understand leadership as a change in direction and (re)organization of actions (e.g. Crevani Reference Crevani2018; Larsson, Barford, Clifton, & Schnurr Reference Larsson, Barford, Clifton and Schnurr2025). Drawing on authentic interactional data that were audio- and video-recorded during two live football matches, we identify and describe some of the discursive and multimodal processes through which leadership (in the form of reorientation and reorganisation) is performed across a complex and multidimensional web of interactions. By capturing these leadership dynamics in situ, this article demonstrates the importance of looking beyond individuals in senior positions to avoid a ‘blackboxing’ (Larsson & Alvehus Reference Larsson and Alvehus2023) of leadership whereby leadership is left conceptually vague and potentially meaningless.
Moreover, it also provides insights into the—at least from a sociolinguisticFootnote 1 perspective—largely overlooked domain of (professional) sports. Professional sport offers a particularly rich and underexplored context for such sociolinguistic inquiry. Sport, as Madsen (Reference Madsen, Creese and Blackledge2018:251) states, constitutes ‘an important research area for human and social sciences’. As a highly visible, globally mediated and commercially significant industry, sport provides a particularly salient site where leadership, identity, and communication are performed under intense pressure and public scrutiny. Interactions among coaches and players are often fast-paced, multimodal, publicly scrutinised, and consequential, thereby offering a compelling arena in which to observe the situated discursive and multimodal processes through which leadership—and, in fact, other social phenomena—are (often collaboratively) accomplished. Of particular interest for sociolinguists is the social arena of the sports team. With their often hierarchical structures, emphasis on teamwork and team spirit, as well as collective aims of delivering high performance, sports teams are a prime site to explore leadership and other social activities. More specifically, sports leadership, which evolves around negotiating collective aims and agreeing on a strategy and direction for the team—especially in competition contexts—is central to many—if not all—sports teams. Sport teams thus constitute an important arena—and societal context—for an exploration of the social functions and meanings of language with regards to leadership. Importantly, we do not suggest that these processes are unique to sport in an ontological sense. Rather, and in line with Madsen’s (Reference Madsen, Creese and Blackledge2018) argument, our focus is not on sport as an independent field, but on the specific interactional arena of team-based professional sport. This arena constitutes a particularly well-delimited and interactionally intense setting in which leadership is enacted through recurrent, high-stakes communicative events, allowing close observation of the sociolinguistic processes through which leadership—and other social phenomena—are accomplished.
Previous sociolinguistic research has largely overlooked the sports domain and mainly focused on how specific individuals—such as CEOs, team leaders, managers, and senior team members—accomplish leadership in a range of professional workplaces (e.g. Baxter Reference Baxter2010; Ladegaard Reference Ladegaard2012; Goebel Reference Goebel2014). Most of these studies are located in white-collar business organisations (e.g. Holmes, Marra, & Vine Reference Holmes, Marra and Vine2011; van de Mieroop & Schnurr Reference Van De Mieroop and Schnurr2014; Baxter Reference Baxter2015) with a particular focus on business meetings (but see Clifton, Schnurr, & van de Mieroop Reference Clifton, Schnurr and De Mieroop2019; Darics Reference Darics2020; Schnurr Reference Schnurr, Mullany and Schnurr2023 for exceptions), while (professional) sports contexts have been largely overlooked (but see e.g. File & Wilson Reference File, Wilson, Mieroop and Schnurr2017; Schnurr, File, Clayton, Wolfers, & Stavridou Reference Schnurr, File, Clayton, Wolfers and Stavridou2021; File Reference File2022). However, due to the crucial role of leadership in sports (e.g. Ryömä & Satama Reference Ryömä and Satama2019)—especially for the success or failure of a team often in high-pressure environments (e.g. Arnold, Fletcher, & Anderson Reference Arnold, Fletcher and Anderson2015)—this domain offers an important window into leadership dynamics. As previous research has convincingly demonstrated, observations about leadership made in sports contexts provide important insights into leadership which may then be applied to other social contexts (e.g. Ryömä & Satama Reference Ryömä and Satama2019). The lack of systematic engagement with leadership in the sports domain from a sociolinguistic perspective is thus surprising—especially since previous research (e.g. Schnurr et al. Reference Schnurr, File, Clayton, Wolfers and Stavridou2021) has shown some of the benefits of such an approach. More specifically, analysing language in this context and conducting fine-grained analyses of team interactions enables researchers to make otherwise relatively abstract notions of leadership (such as emergent or collective leadership) ‘more tangible and actually visible, capturing its complexities and dynamics’ (Schnurr et al. Reference Schnurr, File, Clayton, Wolfers and Stavridou2021:111).
In particular, as we will show in this study, research on leadership in sport challenges dominant assumptions in much of the earlier sociolinguistic literature on workplace leadership, such as the idea that leadership can be adequately understood by focusing on a single, clearly identifiable individual—usually someone in a position of authority (e.g. Schnurr Reference Schnurr2009; Holmes et al. Reference Holmes, Marra and Vine2011; Holmes Reference Holmes2018). More recent studies in organisational and leadership studies have challenged this view and are distancing themselves from these heroic conceptualisations of leadership as located in individuals. They focus instead on the often complex relations through which leadership is accomplished collaboratively (e.g. van de Mieroop, Clifton, & Verhelst Reference Van De Mieroop, Clifton and Verhelst2020). As a consequence of these conceptual developments, a shift in the unit of analysis has taken place from individual leaders to leadership configurations (Gronn Reference Gronn2002, Reference Gronn2015).
Despite leadership being central to high-performance sport, sociolinguistic research has largely neglected this domain, and leadership studies have often overlooked the micro-discursive processes that underpin leadership. This article addresses both gaps by building on Drath, McCauley, Palus, Van Velsor, O’Connor, & McGuire’s (Reference Drath, McCauley, Palus, Van Velsor, O’Connor and McGuire2008) DAC ontology and translating its socio-psychological concepts into a sociolinguistic analytical framework. These developments are also starting to be acknowledged in sociolinguistics research (e.g. Choi & Schnurr Reference Choi and Schnurr2014; Schnurr et al. Reference Schnurr, File, Clayton, Wolfers and Stavridou2021), which has begun to conceptualise leadership as a collective achievement exploring its dynamic and collaborative nature. For example, a few studies have analysed non-heroic leadership configurations—such as co-leadership (Schnurr & Chan Reference Schnurr and Chan2011), distributed leadership (Choi & Schnurr Reference Choi and Schnurr2014; Clifton Reference Clifton, Ilie and Schnurr2017), and emergent leadership (Baxter Reference Baxter2015; Schnurr et al. Reference Schnurr, File, Clayton, Wolfers and Stavridou2021). However, perhaps due to a lack of systematic critical engagement with current developments in leadership and organisational studies (c.f. Schnurr & Schroeder Reference Schnurr and Schroeder2019), most of the research conducted in sociolinguistics has not yet undertaken this ontological shift from viewing leadership as a person or position to acknowledging its collective nature. In this article, we aim to address this issue by demonstrating what can be gained by looking beyond individuals in senior positions and shifting the analytical focus from individual ‘leaders’ to leadership processes. Undertaking this ontological and analytical shift, we believe, will put sociolinguists—with their understanding of how to research the social meaning and functions of language in context—in a strong position from which they are able to make important contributions to the ongoing conversation with leadership scholars (see e.g. Schnurr & Schroeder Reference Schnurr and Schroeder2019; van de Mieroop et al. Reference Van De Mieroop, Clifton and Verhelst2020).
Background
What exactly is leadership?
While leadership is a widely researched topic, many studies—especially in sociolinguistics and applied linguistics more generally—avoid providing a clear definition of the phenomenon under scrutiny (e.g. Holmes et al. Reference Holmes, Marra and Vine2011; Ladegaard Reference Ladegaard2012). Rather, due to taking a person or position approach (Grint Reference Grint2010), these studies are often built on the problematic assumption that by studying how individuals—often in senior positions—interact with their team members or subordinates, insights into leadership are automatically gained. Even though some of these studies explore how leadership is jointly constructed, negotiated, and endorsed or contested (e.g. Holmes et al. Reference Holmes, Marra and Vine2011), they nevertheless use as a starting point for their analyses the problematic assumption that leadership takes place in the interaction between clearly identifiable leaders in senior positions and their more junior colleagues. This body of research is thus person- rather than process-oriented and largely overlooks ongoing debates around complex conceptual differences between leaders and leadership (e.g. Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee Reference Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm and McKee2014). In other words, it ignores Grint’s (Reference Grint2005) urgent plea to put the -ship back into leadership.
In order to address these issues, in this article we build on Drath and colleagues’ (Reference Drath, McCauley, Palus, Van Velsor, O’Connor and McGuire2008) leadership ontology and translate their socio-psychological concepts into more sociolinguistic dimensions. Drath and colleagues’ (Reference Drath, McCauley, Palus, Van Velsor, O’Connor and McGuire2008) original ontology consists of three aspects: direction, alignment, and commitment (DAC). Direction refers to ‘widespread agreement in a collective on overall goals, aims, and mission’ (Drath et al. Reference Drath, McCauley, Palus, Van Velsor, O’Connor and McGuire2008:636), while alignment means ‘the organization and coordination of knowledge and work in a collective’ (Drath et al. Reference Drath, McCauley, Palus, Van Velsor, O’Connor and McGuire2008:636). Commitment describes ‘the willingness of members of a collective to subsume their own interests and benefit within the collective interest and benefit’ (Drath et al. Reference Drath, McCauley, Palus, Van Velsor, O’Connor and McGuire2008:636). As we illustrate in our analyses below, with its analytical tools and procedures, sociolinguistic research is well positioned to operationalise this ontology and provide empirical evidence and systematic and rigorous analytical insights into how direction, alignment, and commitment are accomplished.
While to some extent previous sociolinguistic research may have implicitly adopted individual aspects of this ontology (e.g. by exploring how alignment is created in decision making episodes; e.g. Marra, Schnurr, & Holmes Reference Marra, Schnurr, Holmes and Baxter2006), these studies have—to the best of our knowledge—not yet systematically engaged in bringing all three aspects together and linking their analytical claims to robust leadership ontologies. However, such systematicity and robustness, we would argue, is important if we want to avoid what Larsson & Alvehus (Reference Larsson and Alvehus2023) describe as ‘blackboxing leadership’. In other words, if we want to take leadership out of its blackbox where it can mean anything and everything—and hence be an ‘empty signifier’ (Kelly Reference Kelly2014)—sociolinguistic research needs to move beyond its current focus on individuals in senior positions.
To make the relatively abstract DAC aspects operationalizable in sociolinguistic research, we propose slightly modified definitions which translate and re-specify these aspects on the micro-level of an interaction. More specifically, we understand direction as discursive practices and processes that aim at creating (new) direction, for example, in the form of making a suggestion or putting forward a proposal. Alignment, then, refers to those discursive actions through which interlocutors position themselves in relation to the previously created direction. This may be done, for example, by agreeing or disagreeing with a previous proposal, or by challenging or supporting a suggestion. We reinterpret the final component of the leadership ontology, commitment, as referring to actual attempts at implementing and enacting what has been agreed on. This can, for example, take the form of putting into action and implementing a decision, and taking next steps. Often this aspect of DAC includes observable concrete actions, such as visibly changing the constellations of players during a football match, as in our examples below.
As we illustrate below, these three aspects—direction, alignment, and commitment—are not necessarily performed by an official leader but are often accomplished collectively among the members of a group (sometimes harmoniously and at other times involving heated discussions and perhaps even conflict). Moreover, all three elements need to be present for specific activities—such as decision making—to be classified as leadership. This is an important point as it contradicts the assumption of much earlier sociolinguistics research whereby, for example, the act of making a decision itself was often viewed as evidence of leadership (e.g. Marra et al. Reference Marra, Schnurr, Holmes and Baxter2006). However, if we approach leadership through our modified DAC ontology, decision making can only be classified as leadership (as opposed to, say, sense-making or organising) if there is evidence of all three aspects outlined above. The group’s commitment to a decision, as reflected, for example, in its actual implementation, is crucial in this respect.
Collective leadership and the claiming of epistemic and deontic status
To advance these ideas, it is necessary to move beyond individualistic and leader-centric conceptualisations of leadership and instead adopt a collective perspective that foregrounds how direction, alignment, and commitment are collaboratively enacted by groups. While not every instance of leadership may best be described as collective, previous research in leadership and organisational studies has established that ‘there are many forms’ of collective leadership (Fairhurst, Jackson, Foldy, & Ospina Reference Fairhurst, Jackson, Foldy and Ospina2020:603). Following recent developments, we use ‘collective leadership’ as an umbrella term to cover shared leadership, distributed leadership, and co-leadership (e.g. Spiller, Maunganui Wolfgramm, Henry, & Pouwhare Reference Spiller, Wolfgramm, Henry and Pouwhare2019; Empson & Alvehus Reference Empson and Alvehus2020; Ospina, Foldy, Fairhurst, & Jackson Reference Ospina, Foldy, Fairhurst and Jackson2020; Edwards & Bolden Reference Edwards and Bolden2023). Taken together with the definition of leadership and the modified DAC ontology outlined above, this means that we define collective leadership more specifically as those activities through which a group of people—rather than individuals—collectively enact, negotiate, and achieve a change in direction and reorganization of actions through creating direction, alignment, and commitment.
Such a collective enactment of leadership is often closely linked to participants’ epistemic and deontic stance and status. Following Stevanovic & Peräkylä (Reference Stevanovic and Peräkylä2014) and Stevanovic & Svennevig (Reference Stevanovic and Svennevig2015), we understand epistemic status as referring to a person’s recognised knowledge or right to know about a particular subject, while deontic status pertains to their authority or right to make decisions and direct others’ actions. As we illustrate in our analyses below, participants’ epistemic and deontic stance and status are particularly relevant for their role in the leadership processes (see also Schnurr et al. Reference Schnurr, File, Clayton, Wolfers and Stavridou2021). While deontic and epistemic status, to some extent, overlap with participants’ institutional roles and positioning (e.g. as analyst or head coach), epistemic and deontic stances acknowledge that leadership emerges from actual behaviour and may thus also occur independently of formal authority and positions (see also van de Mieroop et al. Reference Van De Mieroop, Clifton and Verhelst2020). This is particularly relevant in the context of sport teams where previous research has shown that team members other than the official leader (i.e. captain or head coach) also display deontic and epistemic stances associated with leadership (e.g. Wilson Reference Wilson, Ilie and Schnurr2017; Schnurr et al. Reference Schnurr, File, Clayton, Wolfers and Stavridou2021; Stavridou Reference Stavridou2022).
Previous research on collective leadership has explored the co-occurrence between formal and informal leadership (e.g. Gronn Reference Gronn2002; van de Mieroop et al. Reference Van De Mieroop, Clifton and Verhelst2020), the sharing of leadership activities in dyads (e.g. Gibeau, Langley, Denis, & van Schendel Reference Gibeau, Langley, Denis and Van Schendel2020) and teams without an official leader (e.g. Choi & Schnurr Reference Choi and Schnurr2014; Schnurr et al. Reference Schnurr, File, Clayton, Wolfers and Stavridou2021). Studies have analysed how hierarchical and horizontal leadership occur depending on the urgency and pressure of a situation (e.g. Lortie, Cabantous, & Sardais Reference Lortie, Cabantous and Sardais2023), as well as how shared and hierarchical leadership are intertwined with each other (e.g. Holm & Fairhurst Reference Holm and Fairhurst2018). These studies have identified and described some of the processes through which different professionals work together and share leadership roles and responsibilities (e.g. Currie & Spyridonidis Reference Currie and Spyridonidis2019), and how leadership emerges (e.g. Schnurr et al. Reference Schnurr, File, Clayton, Wolfers and Stavridou2021; Lortie et al. Reference Lortie, Cabantous and Sardais2023).
This previous research on collective leadership has explored different professional contexts, including healthcare settings (e.g. Currie & Spyridonidis Reference Currie and Spyridonidis2019; Gibeau et al. Reference Gibeau, Langley, Denis and Van Schendel2020), haute cuisine kitchens (Lortie et al. Reference Lortie, Cabantous and Sardais2023), educational contexts (e.g. Gronn Reference Gronn2002; Choi & Schnurr Reference Choi and Schnurr2014), and business organisational environments (e.g. Vine, Holmes, Marra, Pfeifer, & Jackson Reference Vine, Holmes, Marra, Pfeifer and Jackson2008; Schnurr & Chan Reference Schnurr and Chan2011). However, there have been repeated calls for future research to venture into other—to date largely overlooked—contexts (e.g. Empson & Alvehus Reference Empson and Alvehus2020; Lortie et al. Reference Lortie, Cabantous and Sardais2023). We aim to address these calls by exploring collective leadership in the context of a professional football team. Despite the crucial role that collective and other forms of leadership play with regards to the success or failure of a team on the playing field, the sports domain remains surprisingly overlooked by leadership research. We discuss work that has been carried out in this domain in the next section.
Leadership in the domain of (professional) sports teams
Leadership research has only relatively recently discovered the sports domain as an interesting and fruitful context for academic inquiry. This is surprising, given that sporting contexts ‘offer insightful research material regarding relational leadership’, as Ryömä & Satama (Reference Ryömä and Satama2019:702) convincingly demonstrate in their study on collective leadership in ice-hockey and dancing. Most research on leadership in the domain of (professional) sports has been conducted in sports psychology (e.g. Arthur & Bastardoz Reference Arthur, Bastardoz, Tenenbaum and Eklund2020), sports sciences (e.g. Cotteril & Fransen Reference Cotterill and Fransen2016), and sports management (e.g. Peachey, Zhou, Damon, & Burton Reference Peachey, Zhou, Damon and Burton2015). Although some of these studies specifically explore the crucial role of communication for leadership, their linguistic analyses remain largely on the surface and do not provide the kind of in-depth analyses that sociolinguistic research can offer. Moreover, their data mainly consist of post-hoc interviews (e.g. Smith, Figgins, Jewiss, & Kearney Reference Smith, Figgins, Jewiss and Kearney2018) and observational fieldnotes (e.g. Whales, Frawley, Cohen, & Nikolova Reference Whales, Frawley, Cohen and Nikolova2022). Among the few sociolinguistic studies that explore leadership discourse in the sports domain are File’s (Reference File2022), Wilson’s (Reference Wilson, Ilie and Schnurr2017), and File & Wilson’s (Reference File, Wilson, Mieroop and Schnurr2017) studies of different aspects of the language used by rugby coaches, Schnurr and colleagues’ (Reference Schnurr, File, Clayton, Wolfers and Stavridou2021) analysis of emergent leadership among the members of a netball team, as well as Stavridou’s (Reference Stavridou2022) and Stavridou & File’s (Reference Stavridou, File, Schnurr and File2023) research on leadership and teamwork in a university basketball team. These studies have identified several discursive strategies through which leadership is collectively enacted among different members of the sporting teams. Using different discourse analytical approaches, they demonstrate not only the many benefits of conducting fine-grained analyses of leadership discourse, but they also convincingly show that leadership is a collective accomplishment that involves not only officially designated leaders but may also emerge independently of them (e.g. Schnurr et al. Reference Schnurr, File, Clayton, Wolfers and Stavridou2021; Stavridou Reference Stavridou2022).
Building on this work, and drawing on the above conceptual frame, in this article we explore the discursive and multimodal strategies through which leadership is accomplished collectively among the coaches of a professional football team.
Methodology, data and analytical concepts
Adopting discourse analysis: Exploring the language of collective leadership
Most previous studies on collective leadership tend to rely on participants’ reported experience as captured in interviews (e.g. Currie & Spyridonidis Reference Currie and Spyridonidis2019; Empson & Alvehus Reference Empson and Alvehus2020; Empson, Langley, & Sergi Reference Empson, Langley and Sergi2023) sometimes complemented by ethnographic data (e.g. Gibeau et al. Reference Gibeau, Langley, Denis and Van Schendel2020; Lortie et al. Reference Lortie, Cabantous and Sardais2023). In line with our sociolinguistic lens, in this article we analyse naturally occurring interactional data that were captured through video- and audio-recordings of the coaches on the sidelines during the team’s live matches. Such a methodological approach has multiple advantages over more traditional methodologies (see e.g. Clifton, Larsson, & Schnurr Reference Clifton, Larsson and Schnurr2020). Perhaps most importantly for our purposes in this study, it enables researchers to ‘show how “doing” leadership is not limited to the formal leader’, and to empirically capture and describe the specific processes through which leadership is collectively enacted among different team members ‘through talk, gaze, the use of space, artefacts and so on’ (van de Mieroop et al. Reference Van De Mieroop, Clifton and Verhelst2020:490). In this article we address these methodological issues by exploring the complex and multidimensional web of leadership relations through which leadership unfolds among the coaches in a professional football team during actual live matches.
Research setting and data set
This study emerged from a project conducted in collaboration with a national football association from a UEFA-affiliated country that focused on communication within the men’s national team coaching staff. The primary data for this project consisted of video- and audio-recordings of naturally occurring interactions between coaches and support staff during live matches. Microphones were attached to coaches and support staff during national team fixtures, and a video camera was positioned on the bench to capture the movements and non-verbal communication by the coaches as they watched and acted upon the unfolding match.
The match from which the data in this article comes is an international friendly which lasted for a total duration of 1 hour, 52 minutes, and 32 seconds. The recording length is longer than the ninety-minute duration of a football match as half-time recordings were also captured, as well as pre- and post-match on-field formalities, such as singing the national anthem and shaking hands after the match.
Given its significance to leadership dynamics, a note on the coaching team’s organisational culture is warranted here. In addition to obtaining the audio- and video-recordings (outlined above), we were also afforded the opportunity to run two extensive workshops with the coaching team after the analysis. During these workshops it became clear that the coaches viewed the analysts as members of the leadership team, and they also remarked how team members had intersecting and sometimes overlapping roles and responsibilities during the match and that anyone could identify and raise an issue for consideration. Such cultural factors underpin many of the discursive processes we analyse in this article and provide important background information to understand our observations and analytical interpretations.
Participants and additional data
The coaching and support staff who were recorded on the bench were the team manager or head coach (Tom Reed), the assistant manager (Brian Marks), two coaches (Sam Foster and Ryan Cooper), an additional goal keeping coach (Leo Carter), and the team’s lead performance analyst (Adam Bennett). Up on the gantry (i.e. away from the coaching bench) was the team’s other performance analyst (Marco Duarte) who was connected to the analyst on the bench via a mobile telephone line that ran for the duration of the match. This interaction was also recorded and included in the wider data set. All names are pseudonyms.
We also had a bird’s eye camera-angle recording of the match that was connected to the audio- and video-recordings we captured from the bench. This allowed us to cross reference the unfolding discussions and interactional activity between coaching and support staff with specific events that were happening in and throughout the match, which provided an important layer of game events and issues to our analysis of leadership in interaction.
Analytical framework and process: Using epistemic and deontic stance to locate DAC in action
All recorded interactions were transcribed,Footnote 2 with the audios for each individual coach transcribed separately. These were then organised into a singular transcript and prepared for closer analysis. Multimodal and paralinguistic features were included in this transcription, including gaze, volume (e.g. shouting), proxemics and kinesics (e.g. leaning, sitting, standing, pointing) and prop use (e.g. use of laptops and tablets). In analysing the data, this study draws on two conceptual tools to identify and analyse leadership as it unfolded in the interactions between members of the coaching team: the modified version of the DAC ontology (Drath et al. Reference Drath, McCauley, Palus, Van Velsor, O’Connor and McGuire2008) and the concepts of epistemic and deontic status and stance (Stevanovic & Peräkylä Reference Stevanovic and Peräkylä2014; Stevanovic & Svennevig Reference Stevanovic and Svennevig2015) as outlined above.
More specifically, in our analysis below, we use the concepts of epistemic and deontic status and stance to analytically describe and interpret the ways in which direction, alignment, and commitment are enacted by the members of the coaching team. We do this by looking for interactional evidence of epistemic and deontic stances—that is, ways in which individuals express their knowledge, authority, or alignment in their moment-to-moment unfolding interactions. Epistemic and deontic stances provide a useful means of analysing how interlocutors manage their own and each other’s status in real-time interaction vis-à-vis a given situation or context. Stance-taking allows us to observe how a person’s overt claims to knowledge or authority, and the responses they elicit, shape the ongoing interaction and how these may shift across situational contexts, affecting leadership dynamics.
By examining shifts in both status and stance during interaction, we can better understand how leadership emerges and is distributed among various interlocutors, particularly in collective or team-based settings where different individuals may assert or defer authority and expertise based on the situation. For example, during a match, a head coach’s deontic status may be particularly high based on their senior position within the coaching team, but their epistemic stance may shift, showing deference to the goalkeeping coach when an issue related to goalkeeping arises, reflecting the latter’s epistemic status. As previous research has demonstrated, status and stances can fluctuate depending on situational expertise and the tactical decisions being made, allowing for a more complex understanding of the nuances of leadership (e.g. Schnurr et al. Reference Schnurr, File, Clayton, Wolfers and Stavridou2021).
This epistemic-deontic lens added a further layer to our interactional analysis, enabling us to describe the specific discursive processes through which leadership was accomplished across interlocutors. Importantly, in many instances—and certainly in the case we discuss below—leadership emerged and unfolded organically across different moments and in different locations throughout the football match (including the halftime break). Integrating the DAC ontology and the analytical concepts of epistemic and deontic status and stance, thus enabled us to empirically capture and analyse how leadership unfolds across a web of different interactions, not as a function of singular individuals but as a co-constructed and dynamic process shaped by both knowledge and authority claimed and exercised by different members of the coaching staff at different points throughout the match.
Analysis
While we did analyse the entire match, for the purposes of this article, we have selected just four extracts (which occurred at different points during the match) in which members of the coaching team discuss a particular structural issue in the team, namely that too many players (or ‘bodies’) are ‘in the box’ (i.e. the penalty area immediately outside the goal) when defending against attacks from the opposition. While we analyse each extract in turn, it is important to bear in mind that leadership (in the sense of creating a change in direction and a reorganisation of actions) unfolds collectively across these extracts—much like a web—involving different interlocutors and taking place at different locations at different points throughout the match. Thus, while in some of the extracts, individual members of the coaching team may take on a leadership role, it is when we look across the extracts, as the discussion develops, that the collective (and web-like) nature of the leadership processes becomes clear. This collective enactment of leadership is typical for our data set, where most decisions are made collaboratively.
Examples
Extracts (1) and (2) occurred on the sidelines during the first half of the match where the issue of ‘too many bodies in the box’ was first identified, and extracts (3) and (4) are taken from the half-time break where this issue was picked up again and the agreed action was eventually communicated to the players for implementation. In our analyses, we specifically focus on illustrating how the shift in direction and a reorganisation of action are negotiated collectively.
(1) Context: This first part of the interaction occurs during the match where the analyst and the coaches are standing (or sitting) on the sidelines of the playing field shouting instructions and feedback to the players as the match is under way. Adam, the analyst, has noticed something and brings it to the attention of the other coaches (Brian and Sam).
1 Adam: {Adam pauses his live stream of the match on his laptop. He directs the laptop screen towards Sam}
2 {to Sam} look at this {points at laptop screen}
3 seven v three in the box though
4 {towards Brian, who does not react} we don’t need so many in the box
5 we can get up higher
6 Sam: Yeah
7 Brian: {towards Tom who’s stood up in front} needs more bodies
8 Adam: we can release out a bit
9 there’s enough-
10 {Adam independently creates a clip of the discussed event}
At the beginning of this extract, Adam identifies an issue on the playing field, namely that there are seven players versus three opponents in the box (line 3), which he brings to the attention of his colleagues in the coaching team. This is achieved initially non-verbally by turning his laptop towards Sam (line 1), followed by addressing him with a directive, “look at this”, while pointing to the laptop screen (line 2). The use of the laptop here not only reflects Adam’s deontic status and stance as the team’s analyst but also acts as a prop to signal to the other coaches that their attention is needed. It thus functions as a leadership artefact (Clifton, Fachin, & Cooren Reference Clifton, Fachin and Cooren2021) and an important means to initiate the first component of Drath and colleagues’ (Reference Drath, McCauley, Palus, Van Velsor, O’Connor and McGuire2008) leadership ontology—direction.
More specifically, Adam’s control of the laptop is specific to his role as analyst and provides him with access to a live stream of the match, as well as the ability to make clips, replay sections of the game, and present strategic insights of the match in real time. Therefore, by using the laptop to initiate an interaction and identify an issue, he emphasises the deontic and epistemic status associated with his role, drawing on the embedded assumption of the strategic expertise and analytical tools associated with it. Moreover, by evidencing his knowledge of the match in his observations and expertise in strategy by evaluating them as an issue, Adam also adopts a heightened epistemic stance while fulfilling the expectations of his role as analyst. This is reflected, for example, when he pivots the assessment of the match into a constructive proposal to solve the issue, suggesting “we can get up higher” (line 5) and “we can release out a bit” (line 8) rather than being so condensed when defending. The use of the epistemic modal verb “can” here presents this proposal as a potential option, highlighting that improvement is possible rather than necessary, and the repeated use of the inclusive first-person plural pronoun “we” constructs this as a collaborative effort and decision.
However, it is important to acknowledge that although it is Adam who initiates the creation of direction here, this is nevertheless a collaborative effort as his concrete suggestions for future actions (lines 4 and 5) are supported and elaborated by two of the other coaches, Sam and Brian. With their minimal feedback (line 6) and a reformulation of Adam’s suggestion (line 7), they make important contributions to leadership as this relatively brief initial exchange lays the groundwork for the subsequent discussion among the other coaches, which eventually leads to a shift in direction and a reorganization in the players’ strategic positioning as we illustrate in more detail below. This short exchange thus forms the basis for the subsequent emergence of collective leadership across the extracts below.
While lines 8 to 10 mark the temporary end of this short interaction, the coaches return to the issue of ‘too many bodies in the box’ just over a minute later when the blowing of the whistle by the referee (line 1 in extract (2)) creates an opportunity for others to follow up on Adam’s initial observation and contribute more actively to the discussion. Extract (2) illustrates how the second component in Drath and colleagues’ ontology—alignment—is negotiated.
(2) Context: This second part of the interaction occurs about a minute after the end of extract (1).
1 {whistle is blown, match is temporarily paused}
2 Sam: {leaning towards Adam} Adam who er you said seven v three
3 Adam: {to Sam} yeah so this {Adam puts the clip he just made onto the laptop screen, Brian leans into the look at laptop}
4 Sam: who who
5 Adam: {Brian and Sam both lean in to look at the laptop} just this one when we’re uhm
6 when we’re defending the box it’s like desire for him to get back in but
7 Brian: /more bodies more bodies\ Ash has to be over Heath has to be we’re fuck-
8 Adam: /it’s fucking seven against three in there\
9 Yeah
10 Brian: Ash is here this is Ash that’s Ash there
11 Adam: /well look like\ a three here
12 Sam: /Heath can\
13 Adam: {pointing at laptop screen} like one of these can release onto here surely
14 yeah yeah
15 Tom: {walks to bench}
16 Adam: or or Tim
17 one of them innit
18 Sam: yeah yeah
19 Brian: as soon as you see overload we need bodies over
20 fuck it don’t matter where they come from
21 Adam: yeah yeah
22 Tom: {sits down on bench and begins new conversation topic}
In this phase of the interaction, the other coaches engage more actively and align with Adam’s interpretation of the situation on the playing field as problematic. However, interestingly, they formulate some alternative potential changes in direction and a reorganisation of action, thereby further creating and negotiating both direction and alignment. This process of discussing and negotiating a shift in direction and a reorganisation of actions is not linear and straightforward but emerges in a rather cyclical fashion and creates a web of leadership as interlocutors refer back to and build on each other’s suggestions while making new propositions.
The excerpt starts with Sam re-engaging with the issue by directly addressing Adam and repeating verbatim Adam’s assessment from extract (1) (“you said seven v three”; line 3). He thereby orients to Adam’s deontic status as the team’s analyst, as well as his epistemic stance and status displayed before the whistle blow as someone who can analyse the match and make informed evaluations of match play. This is further achieved by Sam’s repeated clarifying questions (“who” in line 4) through which he works towards establishing a shared understanding of the issue at hand.
This establishing of a shared understanding is joined by Brian (the assistant manager) from line 7 onwards. Interrupting Adam’s explanations (lines 5–6), Brian signals his agreement with the analyst’s proposal for a shift in direction (namely to release players into the midfield) by repeating Adam’s suggestion (“more bodies more bodies”; line 7). Brian thereby not only displays his alignment with his colleague but also appeals to Adam’s epistemic status as analyst. At the same time, however, he also displays his own high deontic status and stance by interrupting his more junior colleague and proposing a more specified shift in direction and reorganisation of actions (i.e. by individually naming available players who are able to release further up the pitch; line 7). Repeatedly using the deontic modal verb “has to”, Brian marks this reorganisation of action as necessary and urgent.
What is particularly interesting about the discussions at this point is the close intertwinement between the two aspects of direction and alignment of our modified version of Drath and colleagues’ (Reference Drath, McCauley, Palus, Van Velsor, O’Connor and McGuire2008) leadership ontology. While all three members of the coaching team seem to agree about what the issue is, having displayed their alignment with Adam’s initial assessment and interpretation of the situation as problematic (e.g. “we’re fuck-”; line 7), there seems to be disagreement as to what exactly a shift in direction and reorganisation of actions would involve. Over the next few turns, different members make different propositions and suggest different ways of reorganising the actions of the players (lines 8–18). This collaborative back and forth, where members of the coaching team build on each other’s contributions in their attempts to create direction and alignment about how to reorganise the players in the box, is a collective process and contributes to constructing a web of collective leadership.
Linguistically, this collaboration is achieved, for example, by frequent overlaps (lines 7/8, 11/12) signalling interlocutors’ heightened involvement (e.g. Jefferson Reference Jefferson, Atkinson and Heritage1984), the use of the inclusive first-person pronoun ‘we’ when referring to the players (e.g. lines 7 and 19), providing positive minimal feedback (lines 9, 14, 18, 21) reflecting active listening and engagement with the discussion, as well as repeated swearing (lines 7, 8, 20). Drawing on these discursive strategies, the coaches and analyst collectively work towards agreeing on the new direction and the specifics of the reorganization of the players’ actions.
This discussion comes to an end—at least temporarily—when Adam summarises the discussion as “one of them innit” (line 17), thereby suggesting that either of the solutions brought forward by different members of the coaching team are not only possible but valid. This suggestion—and the explicit formulation of the collectively created shift in direction—features the utterance-final pragmatic particle (“innit”) which is not only an expression of solidarity but also invites others’ feedback (File Reference File2022). It is responded to with minimal but enthusiastic agreement from Sam (c.f. the repetition of “yeah”; line 18) and Brian’s slightly reformulated version of Adam’ suggestion (“we need bodies over … it don’t matter where they come from”; lines 19–20). This ratification by Brian then receives further support (in the form of minimal feedback) from Adam before the discussion comes to an end (as is signalled in the start of a new conversation initiated by Tom). No further reference is made to this issue before the half-time break (extracts (3) and (4)).
(3) Context: This extract takes place during the coaches meeting during half-time. After the first half of the match has been completed, the members of the coaching team come together in a separate room to briefly discuss the team’s performance and agree what changes to implement for the second half. These meetings are usually very quick and last only a few minutes before the coaches enter the team’s changing room to communicate the agreed actions to the players (extract (4)). In the meeting room there is a large screen on the wall which Adam has connected to his laptop and is playing various clips from the first half for discussion. Tom and Brian are leading most of the conversation up until this point, with some contributions from Adam.
1 Adam: {Adam brings up a new clip} this one as well where we’re
2 down here
3 like
4 look how many bodies we’ve got in here
5 like surely someone’s gotta release with Ryan
6 coz you end up here with fucking eight or seven versus three
7 Tom: {Brian and Tom nod} it’s a six then
8 it’s a six {Sam leans into the screen}
9 Brian: [inaudible]
10 there you go
11 Tom: [inaudible]
[one second omitted]
12 Tom: OK (3.0)
13 but they’re doing what /we asked them\
14 Brian: /yeah brilliant\
15 Tom: they’re defending the fucking box==
16 Adam: ==yeah yeah no it’s great /it is good\
17 Tom: /[inaudible]\ it’s a few little tweaks
This sequence, although it occurs long after the previous one, is a direct continuation of the discussion around the issue of ‘too many bodies in the box’ identified by Adam in extract (1). Like in the previous extracts, the members of the coaching team collectively engage in the leadership processes of creating direction and alignment in terms of how to reorganize the players’ actions in the second half of the match. Here too, the process of discussing and eventually reaching agreement about the proposed reorganisation of actions is not linear but emerges in a cyclical fashion.
With different members of the coaching team (most notably Brian and Tom, the team manager) joining the discussion, and interlocutors referring back to and building on suggestions and issues raised in previous extracts, a web of leadership is created which spans across the extracts. In other words, the leadership processes of creating direction and alignment (as part of Drath et al.’s modified ontology described above), with the aim of agreeing on and implementing a shift in direction and a reorganisation of the players’ actions, are not confined to one specific point in the interaction between the members of the coaching team, nor to a specific location. Rather, they emerge in a web-like fashion across relatively short snippets of interactions which involve all of the members of the coaching team at different points in time—during the match (extracts (1) and (2)) and at halftime (extracts (3) and (4))—as well as in different locations, such as on the sidelines (extracts (1) and (2)), in the coaches meeting room (extract (3)), and the players’ changing room (extract (4)).
At the beginning of this extract (lines 1–6), Adam plays the video clip he made of the problematic incident and provides a summative assessment, thereby bringing the issue of ‘too many bodies in the box’ to the attention of everyone in the coaching team. In doing this, he adopts a heightened deontic stance and places himself on the same hierarchical level as the senior coaches (i.e. Tom and Brian), who at this stage have been the only other individuals to contribute to this half-time discussion (not shown in the transcripts due to word limits). The observations that nobody objects to Adam taking the turn and that nobody interrupts him further demonstrate his deontic status in this group.
Like in the previous extracts, Adam uses the inclusive first-person plural pronoun “we” (lines 1 and 4), and the technical term “bodies” (rather than “players”; line 4) to describe the issue. His use of the adverb “surely” (line 5), the deontic modal verb “gotta” (line 5), and the swearing “fucking” (line 6) strengthen the illocutionary force of his proposed reorganization of the players’ actions. This proposed change in direction (i.e. to lower the number of players in the box) is then agreed to by the other coaches who align with it, as the nodding by Brian and Tom (line 7) indicates. In the end, Tom, the team manager and most senior member of team, has the last word on this matter (“it’s a six then”; lines 7 and 8) as he ratifies this new direction and expresses the coaches’ alignment and commitment to the agreed shift in direction and reorganization of the players’ actions on the field (i.e. to have less players in the box). The use of “it’s” declares this decision about what is needed as definitive, contrasting directly with Adam and Sam’s earlier uses of the optionality expressed by the modal verb “can”. Thus, rather than presenting another set of options for potential actions, Tom at this point displays his deontic status and adopts a heightened deontic stance when expressing the coaching team’s commitment to this future action. He thereby closes down the discussion and declares the way in which the necessary change will be implemented. At this point in the interaction, alignment—as well as commitment—have been reached among the members of the coaching team regarding the change of direction and reorganisation of action they want the players to implement in the rest of the match.
However, even though it is the most senior member of the coaching team, Tom, who has the last word on this matter and who eventually communicates the decision to the players (see extract (4) below), as our analyses of extracts (1) to (3) have shown, reaching this point has been a collaborative effort which unfolded across different interactional sequences. Although Adam played a crucial role in this creation and negotiation of direction, alignment, and commitment, these aspects of Drath and colleagues’ leadership ontology are enacted collectively with the other members of the coaching team—including Sam (extract (1)), Brian (extracts (1)–(3)) and the team manager, Tom (extract (3)). Direction, alignment, and commitment thus emerge across a network of interactions up and down the team’s hierarchy, thereby creating a web of collective leadership to which various members of the coaching team contribute.
Following Tom’s expression of alignment and commitment here, there is a small pause amongst the coaches as they individually review the clip (line 12). Tom reinitiates the conversation by providing a relatively formulaic praise of the players’ performance (lines 13 and 15) before summarising the previously reached consensus among the coaches regarding the proposed shift in direction and reorganisation of action (“a few little tweaks”; line 17). Noteworthy here is Tom’s use of pronouns, with which he sets up a we-versus-them dichotomy between the coaches (“we”) and the players (“they”). This is in marked contrast to the other coaches’ use of the inclusive “we” throughout the other extracts. Nevertheless, Brian and Adam both express their agreement with Tom’s evaluation, and the overlaps (lines 13/14, 16/17) and latching on (lines 15/16) reflect their heightened involvement and active participation (Jefferson Reference Jefferson, Atkinson and Heritage1984). This collective alignment by both Adam and Brian appeals to Tom’s deontic and epistemic stance and status as the most senior and very knowledgeable and experienced member of the coaching team.
At this point, the coaching team has completed the DAC cycle as they have agreed on a new direction (and a reorganisation of the players’ actions), created alignment among the coaches, and expressed their commitment to this new direction. The next extract below shows how the coaches’ decision is communicated to the players, which we argue is a crucial step in the enactment of (collective) leadership and completing DAC.
(4) Context: After the coaches’ meeting, Tom walks directly into the players’ dressing room where he addresses the players and gives feedback on their performance in the first half of the match. Based on the previous discussion with the other members of the coaching team, he informs them where and how to make changes—for instance, with regards to player formation—in the second half.
1 Tom: the run clip there
2 where we’ve got eight bodies in the box
3 exactly what we’ve asked you to do fucking brilliant
4 that’d be two v one otherwise
5 alright so it might be Heath it might be six that comes across
6 and that’s Ryan [inaudible] we wanna take
7 we still got bodies to defend the box
8 {the topic of conversation changes and this issue is not brought up again}
This extract further shows how the commitment aspect of Drath and colleagues’ leadership ontology is enacted. Following initial praise and positive feedback (line 3) and using the discourse markers “alright so” to indicate a change in direction (line 5), Tom provides constructive comments on how the players need to change their strategy and positioning for the second half of the match. In doing this, he draws on and uses the technical vocabulary that the other members of the coaching team have used throughout their previous discussions (e.g. “release”; extract (1), line 8, and extract (2), line 13; “bodies” and “defend the box”; line 7). Being the one to deliver the jointly reached decision to the players, Tom also enacts his authority as the team manager. He constructs his deontic stance and status, as well as a heightened epistemic stance, as an expert in improving strategy and gameplay by informing the players of the shift in direction for the second half. However, despite his official senior role in the team, he constructs this agreed upon shift in direction and reorganisation of actions linguistically as a suggestion (rather than a command)—as reflected, for example, in his use of the modal verb “might” (line 5)—and as a joint effort—for example, by repeatedly using the inclusive first-person plural pronoun “we” when clearly referring to the players (e.g. lines 6 and 7).
Although—due to his notional role as the team’s manager and the deontic status associated with this—Tom is the only member of the coaching team to communicate this change of direction to the players, as our analyses above have demonstrated, reaching this point has been a truly collaborative effort involving all of the members of the coaching team. This is also reflected in the discursive strategies used by Tom in his address to the players where he frequently refers to and incorporates formulations from the previous discussions with the other coaches. For example, he relays the observation that “we’ve got eight bodies in the box” (line 2), which was made and continually repeated by Adam (e.g. “fucking eight or seven”; extract (3), line 6). Through such more or less explicit references to the other members of the coaching team, Tom legitimises their epistemic stance and status established during the previous discussions and implicitly acknowledges their role in the leadership process.
At this point in the match, commitment has been reached by the coaches (extract (3)) and communicated to the players (extract (4)). However, we would argue that this third and final aspect of our modified version of Drath and colleagues’ leadership ontology is only fully achieved until the players implement—and hence commit to—the proposed changes of having less ‘bodies in the box’ during their play in the second half of the match. Tom’s use of the inclusive “we” towards the end of extract (4), seems to also acknowledge this crucial role of the players in the implementation of this commitment. Thus, although Tom is the one delivering the commitment aspect of the leadership ontology here—which we understand as sitting at the centre of the leadership web, joining the different threads (of direction and alignment as outlined above) together and interweaving them in constructive and productive ways—reaching this point was clearly a collaborative achievement involving not only the various coaching team members (extracts (1)–(3)), but also including the players (extract (4)).
Discussion
By identifying and describing the specific discursive processes through which the coaching members of a professional football team collectively do leadership during a live football match, this article makes two main contributions to current scholarship. First, it has demonstrated to sociolinguistic researchers of leadership what can be gained by replacing the largely leader-centric notions of leadership characterising much sociolinguistic research (e.g. Schnurr Reference Schnurr2009; Ladegaard Reference Ladegaard2012; Holmes Reference Holmes2018) with more dynamic conceptualisations that emphasise the collective nature of the phenomenon (e.g., Schnurr & Chan Reference Schnurr and Chan2011). Using the modified version of Drath and colleagues’ (Reference Drath, McCauley, Palus, Van Velsor, O’Connor and McGuire2008) DAC ontology introduced above, enables researchers to identify and describe the discursive and multimodal strategies and processes through which leadership unfolds across a web of different interactions, taking place, in our case, at different moments and in different locations throughout the football match we analysed. Secondly, to leadership researchers more widely, we have shown some of the benefits of approaching (collective) leadership from a sociolinguistic lens, drawing on the concepts of deontic and epistemic stance and status, and exploring the discursive processes and practices through which direction, alignment, and commitment are accomplished, thereby capturing leadership in action. We thereby address Empson & Alvehus’ (Reference Empson and Alvehus2020) and van de Mieroop and colleagues’ (Reference Van De Mieroop, Clifton and Verhelst2020) critical comments about the current lack of empirical research on collective leadership.
As we have illustrated throughout our analyses, one of the most important consequences of moving away from leader-centred views and instead adopting our modified version of the DAC leadership ontology is a shift in analytical attention. Rather than analysing the (interactional) behaviour of often a priori identified leaders and their subordinates or followers (which itself is a highly contested concept; e.g. Collinson Reference Collinson2006), using the modified DAC ontology enables researchers to capture and explore the concrete practices involved in the construction and enactment of direction, alignment, and commitment without being unnecessarily constrained by a focus on specific individuals and their titles or positions.
This is precisely where sociolinguistic research can make significant contributions to leadership research more widely. Sociolinguists have at their disposal a wide range of analytical (as well as methodological) processes and strategies that enable precisely this in-depth analysis of the micro-level of an interaction. This allows researchers to identify and make visible the specific processes and practices through which leadership unfolds in a particular moment as well as across time. While our analyses have demonstrated how this was achieved during the discussions among the coaching staff at different moments during a live football match, the methodological and analytical processes outlined above are applicable to different contexts, in particular professional environments. As Madsen (Reference Madsen, Creese and Blackledge2018:251) maintains, ‘particular aspects of sport … would be similar to professional contexts’.
Moreover, our clear ontological stance and explicit definition of what we understand leadership to be, ensured that the object of our study becomes more tangible. We were thus able to avoid potential pitfalls observable in other sociolinguistic research where the terms leadership and leaders are often used interchangeably (e.g. Schnurr & Chan Reference Schnurr and Chan2011), without a clear definition (e.g. Petraki & Ramayanti Reference Petraki2018) and in a rather narrow meaning (e.g. Baxter Reference Baxter2010; Ladegaard Reference Ladegaard2012). Being clear about the object of study and using the modified DAC ontology outlined above enabled us to capture the complexity of the web of leadership enacted by the members of the coaching team. However, if we had taken a leader-centric approach and had focused on the most senior member of the coaching team (Tom), we would not have been able to capture and analyse the complex, fragmented, and collective nature of leadership that our analyses have demonstrated. Rather, a leader centric approach would have only focused on the endpoint—presumably Tom’s speech to the players in the changing room (extract (4))—and would have overlooked the complex dynamic and cyclical negotiations of direction and alignment (extracts (1)–(3)) which led there, and which, we would argue, constitute important elements of (collective) leadership.
Our analyses thus strongly support claims that leadership ‘should not be understood as a linear set of unidirectional relationships’ (Sklaveniti Reference Sklaveniti2020:548) with clearly and usually a priori identified roles of leader and followers/subordinates, but rather that leadership is a web of interconnected processes, practices, and relationships that continuously evolve as an interaction unfolds (Empson & Alvehus Reference Empson and Alvehus2020). We have conceptualised these complex relationships and processes as coming together in a web built by the contributions of various members of the coaching team at different points throughout the match and in different locations. Similarly, Scott, Jiang, Wildman, & Griffith (Reference Scott, Jiang, Wildman and Griffith2018) talk about leadership networks, and Spiller and colleagues (Reference Spiller, Wolfgramm, Henry and Pouwhare2019:523) mention an ecosystem of leadership in which ‘people are not typecast into leader or follower’ or into leader (i.e. senior person in a leadership position) and subordinate like much previous sociolinguistic research seems to assume (e.g. Schnurr Reference Schnurr2009; Baxter Reference Baxter2010; Ladegaard Reference Ladegaard2012; Goebel Reference Goebel2014).
Studies like ours thus provide important empirical evidence to feed into and support or challenge current debates in leadership studies (see also Schnurr & Schroeder Reference Schnurr and Schroeder2019). Having shown the analytical benefits of clearly defining the object of study, that is, of committing to a leadership ontology rather than simplistically assuming that leadership can be captured by observing what individuals in official leadership positions do, we hope that future sociolinguistic research on leadership will follow in our footsteps and provide more ontological clarity regarding their object of study, moving away from leader centric approaches based on (largely outdated) heroic notions of leadership. Such an approach, we believe, has the potential to make important contributions to leadership research more widely. It will be interesting to see if future sociolinguistic research on (collective) leadership will make similar observations. Sociolinguists have every reason to more confidently participate in ongoing debates around collective and other forms of leadership, and we hope that the research presented here provides a useful example for future research of how this might be achieved.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank our two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments and encouraging feedback on an earlier version of this paper.
Appendix: Transcription conventions
WORD louder volume (shouting)
/ starting point of overlapping speech
\ end point of overlapping speech
wor- cut off in middle of word
== latching
{} non-verbal phenomena
(3.0) longer pause in seconds
[inaudible] inaudible word or utterance
Open access
