A Leadership Case Study
Introduction
This paper examines the manifestation of certain leadership traits in two different case study subjects and presents a comparative analysis between management and leadership and as to the effect on their effectiveness.
Question 1
Coach K is more person oriented than goal-oriented and that can be seen in the leadership perspectives that manifest within him. He is shown to have driven which can be seen in his will to win and his ambition and energy, along with honesty, self-confidence, and knowledge of the business manifested distinctly in him. All these qualities can be seen very clearly in the way he deals with his students and especially the way he inculcates a sense of respect and discipline within them. On the other hand, Coach Knight showed signs of Drive, leadership motivation and knowledge of the business, especially because Coach Knight is fixed in his ways, and his use of fear and lust (for the perfect game) clearly represent these traits.
When it comes to power bases, talking in respect to what the coach’s use as a source of motivation is trust for Coach K. and fear for Coach Knight. Where Coach Knight’s use of fear as a power base is clear, as he mentions it, and we can see examples in the text. On the other hand, for Coach K his use of group cohesiveness and trust can be seen in his policy if looking each other in the eyes. Furthermore, his approach of getting to know his team well enough to understand where they are coming from and how to shape and guide them in a manner best suited to their individual abilities and potentials.
Coach Knight is more suited to a managerial role as his thinking is not very strategic, and his inability to handle troubled situations coupled with his general temper problems prevent him from acting like a true leader; furthermore he utilizes fear as a power base and he is very goal oriented; always in the search of the “perfect game.” On the other hand, Coach K is more suited to a leadership role as his primary focus in on team building, trust, respects and caring, which complement a much more strategic thought and can aid in long term planning. Although various factors that determine management and leadership are overlapping these are certain distinctions that differentiate both the coaches. Yukl said the evaluation of leadership effectiveness criteria depends on the person making the evaluation. With that in mind, it needs to be understood that the difference between both the coaches, due to which we categorize them as either managerial personnel or leaders are subject to the interpretation and understanding of the reader.
Question 2
Before moving to search for an answer to this, we must remember that the effectiveness of these traits in the work are also subject to the structure of the work that is being done . The coach’s traits greatly influenced their leadership, where one’s (Coach Knight) temper and inclination towards fear and different drive made him managerial, and goal oriented, a person who might overlook personal development in the lust for the perfect game. The other’s (Coach K) honesty, self-confidence and leadership motivation made him more of a leader, focused on team building and trust.
There is a definite agreement between the identified traits and the ones present in the text; motives, values, social skills, expertise, and problem solving all affect the performance effectiveness of the coaches. Not only do we see how they can act as a positive force in one’s favor but also how they can act as serious barriers if not catered to properly. For example, when we see that Coach Knight’s social skills and problem solving fail him and he becomes a victim of his own temper issues, he is seriously reprimanded and later loses his job. Which presents one with the understanding that what use is effectiveness, if there is no job in the first place. Where we see a good practical implementation of these identified factors we see not only agreement in the results, but also a huge success. For example, in the case of Coach K when his motives and values are what motivate his team to be better and his determination to stay at his figurative post supersedes his want for money. Lastly, the effectiveness of the coaches might also be attributed to the fact that neither of them uses a laissez-faire leadership style, with which it is clear that effectiveness has a negative relationship.
References
Humphery, S., Nahrang, J., & Morgenson, F. (2007). ntegrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature . Journal of Applied Psychology (92), 1332-1356.
Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta- analytic test of their relative validity . Journal of Applied Psychology(89), 755-768.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
