The pass comes far from the net. You are the setter and need to chase that ball. You can complain about the reception, point out who made the mistake and explain what should have happened. But the ball is still in the air. Someone needs to get there and prepare the attack.
Ricardinho sums up the setter’s leadership in very concrete terms: “You direct the ball. You lead the team.” There is the responsibility of controlling the ball, and there is the responsibility of organising the team. Neither disappears just because conditions become difficult.
This experience helps us discuss leadership beyond the court, provided the comparison has limits. A company does not operate with the same timing, rules or relationships as a volleyball team. What we can bring to the discussion are observable behaviours: recognising the conditions, deciding, communicating and taking responsibility for each person’s part.
Where to start: responsibility, individual differences, changing the plan, holding people accountable or a team discussion guide.
A job title does not resolve the team’s next action
In volleyball, captain and setter are not the same role. One player may be captain while the setter continues making distribution decisions and helping lead the team during the rally.
In Ricardinho’s experience, that leadership includes chasing the ball and organising play even when the pass does not arrive as expected. Conditions get worse; the responsibility remains.
Beyond the court, the equivalent question is practical: when the previous handover is incomplete, who clarifies what is missing and agrees the next action? If everyone is waiting for a decision without knowing whose it is, job titles have not organised the work.
Taking responsibility does not mean doing everyone’s work
The setter organises, but cannot receive, set and attack alone on every play. The team depends on shared responsibilities.
The same care applies to the management comparison. If the leader takes on every difficult task, they may resolve one urgent issue while maintaining the dependency that creates the next. It is important to distinguish the help needed at that moment from the organisation that will enable someone else to execute later.
Useful guidance makes clear the expected result, who decides, what each person needs to deliver and when to flag that they will not be able to meet the agreement. This avoids confusing autonomy with abandonment.
The leader’s responsibility includes making the next action understandable to the team.
Knowing people changes how you distribute the work
On court, Ricardinho did not give every middle blocker the same ball just because they played the same role. The characteristics of Rodrigão, André Heller and Gustavo informed his choice. The point was to create conditions in which that attacker could execute.
This reasoning does not lower expectations. It makes them more precise. If you ignore how someone works, you may demand an outcome without providing the conditions needed to produce it.
What to check before saying someone “does not deliver”
Check whether expectations were clear, whether the person had the necessary resources and information, and whether dependencies were resolved. Then observe the execution and the result.
A competence problem calls for development. A priority problem calls for a decision. An information problem calls for clarification. Treating all three as a lack of willingness can produce forceful but unhelpful demands.
Nor does this mean accepting every justification. The agreement must make it possible to verify what was missing and what will be done. Knowing the person helps choose the intervention, not erase their responsibility.
One possible application beyond sport
Imagine a team preparing a presentation for a client. One person knows the subject, another organises the data and a third is good at leading the conversation. Assigning tasks according to those characteristics may be more useful than giving everything to whoever usually responds fastest.
This is a hypothetical example created by Equipe R17 to discuss task distribution. The question is: does the current allocation consider what each person needs to contribute, or does it simply repeat the manager’s habit?
When conditions change, sticking to the plan is also a decision
In P4, Ricardinho uses a simple situation to illustrate adaptation: the opponent may serve at the outside hitter and make it difficult for them to participate. If they cannot receive and return to attack in those conditions, the setter needs to see other options.
The previous plan may have been good. The problem is continuing to treat the play as though nothing has happened.
A team needs to recognise what has changed before choosing a correction. Changing everything at every difficulty creates instability; changing nothing can prolong a problem that has already been identified.
Separate an isolated error from recurring conditions
An attack that did not work does not prove the combination is wrong. Likewise, one late delivery does not, on its own, explain a person’s ability.
Observe repetition and context. Does the same obstacle appear in comparable situations? Has the team already tried an adjustment? Does the problem start before it reaches the person being held accountable?
This examination helps avoid two rushed decisions: abandoning a solution after one attempt, or insisting on it merely because it was the original choice.
Explain what changes and what is still expected
Applied to work, a change of direction needs a new agreement. Who takes responsibility? What is the priority? Has the deadline changed? Which deliverable remains essential?
A vague instruction to “sort it out” may transfer pressure without transferring the conditions for making decisions. The team needs to know what it can adjust and what depends on someone else.
Revising the plan is part of being accountable for the result.
Clear accountability takes more than intensity
Ricardinho always competed with intensity. Looking back at situations from his career, he himself recognises that, with the experience he later gained, he could have avoided some conflicts and cards. The important lesson here is not to romanticise confrontation: it is to separate high expectations from impulsive reactions.
The caution is not to use sporting history to justify any way of treating a team. An intense reaction does not, by itself, prove that the guidance was good or that it helped someone execute better.
Talk about the action that needs to change
Compare two ways of addressing a delivery problem. The first accuses the person of never being committed. The second identifies what was not delivered, the effect on the next piece of work and the adjustment needed.
The second approach allows facts to be checked and a response to be built. It can be firm: there is an agreement, an impact and a responsibility. It does not depend on a label about someone’s personality.
Distinguish guidance during an urgent situation from the later review
During a situation requiring an immediate response, the team needs an instruction it can carry out. Afterwards, there is space to reconstruct the sequence and discuss causes.
Mixing the two moments may produce a long explanation when there is little time to act, or a superficial analysis when investigation is already possible. Plan the conversation according to what the moment allows.
At work beyond sport, this does not authorise creating permanent urgency. If every activity is treated as the decisive point, the team loses the distinction between a genuine exception and a planning failure.
Communication needs confirmation
Giving guidance does not guarantee it has been understood. Ask the person to explain the next action in their own words, and check that everyone else knows how that deliverable connects to their work.
If different interpretations emerge, adjust before holding people accountable for the result. It may seem a small step, but it reveals whether an agreement actually exists.
The institutional training on leadership and team management from ENAP includes competencies such as decision-making in context, transparency and building trust. Its connection with this article is the clarity of working relationships; this reference does not turn on-court experience into a validated business model.
A simple question brings the alignment to a useful close: is there any necessary condition that remains unresolved? The answer may reveal a dependency nobody had taken responsibility for.
A guide to reviewing a difficulty with the team
Use this guide as a proposal for a discussion. Choose a recent, clearly defined situation; do not bring all the team’s problems into a single conversation.
| Question | What to look for | Decision the discussion can produce |
|---|---|---|
| What was supposed to happen? | Agreed result and responsibility | Make expectations explicit |
| What actually happened? | An observable sequence, without personal labels | Identify the stage where the difficulty arose |
| Which condition changed or was missing? | Information, resources, time or a dependency | Resolve the condition or adjust the plan |
| What will each person do now? | Action, owner and decision-making limits | Record the next commitment |
| How will we check? | Evidence and a time to report back | Schedule a review proportionate to the task |
If the conversation ends only with a promise of “more attention”, the adjustment still needs specifying. What will be done differently? Who needs to know? How will the team recognise that something has changed?
Record what worked as well. When someone offers a useful solution, understanding how they arrived at it helps the group repeat the behaviour in similar conditions.
A good accountability conversation leaves a next step, not just a memory of the pressure.
FAQ — questions about leadership and team management
What is the difference between leadership and management?
Management generally involves organising resources, responsibilities and follow-up. Leadership involves influencing and guiding collective action. In practice, the two overlap: a team needs organisation and people able to help it decide and execute. The distinction is useful for studying the work, not for dispensing with part of it.
Can I develop leadership without being in a management role?
You can contribute clarity, responsibility, cooperation and useful information while respecting the limits of your role. This does not authorise you to take decisions that belong to another function. When an issue exceeds your autonomy, flag the problem and find someone who can resolve it.
How can I assess a change in leadership approach?
Choose a specific behaviour: clearer responsibilities, less rework caused by missing information, or quicker reporting of obstacles, for example. Compare similar situations and listen to the team. Do not attribute every improvement or decline to the leader’s style without considering other changes in the work.
Leadership training programmes are in development. Join the waitlist.
You can also follow a concrete example in the 5–1 rotation guide, particularly the P4 discussion, and understand how responsibilities are shared across volleyball positions.
Sources and references
- ENAP — Leadership and Team Management: institutional training reference, consulted to contextualise leadership competencies. The business examples and discussion guide in this article are editorial applications, with no claim of validation by ENAP.
