The key components of leadership will be analyzed in styles of two basketballs coaches, Coach Bobby Knight, and Coach Mike Krzyzewski (Coach K.). Either case, the leader's singular job is to get results, but the question is which style best addresses the challenges on a particular situation. Goleman details the types of business situations each style is best suited for, and he explains how leaders lacking one or more of these styles can expand their repertories, which precise leadership behaviors to yield positive results. Furthermore, Goleman maintains that with practice leaders can switch among leadership styles to produce powerful results.
Values, Character and Leadership Styles
The styles, by character and brief description to each personality, showed a contrast in their leadership. However, it is necessary to know more deeply about their values which define partially their characters. In this ground, Mike and Bob had many things in common. For example: according to the article published by Snook, Perlow and Delacey, Coach Knight had six important values: Knight learned the value of discipline, had passion for excellence, honesty, commitment “Knight had an obsession for the hard work, and preparation” perfectionism and solidarity, demonstrated through the Landon Turner Fund and player and family support.
Mike summarized part of these values “what I learned from Knight was the incredible passion it took to be successful, the amount of preparation and an understanding of the game to a level that I had not experienced.”
The values present during Mike’s career were discipline, sharing the same Knight’s meaning “discipline is doing what you are supposed to do”, honesty showed in his final decision that “he would remain at Duke” and solidarity.
On the other hand, even though Knight and Mike shared some important values, they have different characters, which had a considerable influence on their leadership styles, each one springing from different components of emotional intelligence, but each style with a distinct effect on the working atmosphere of their team. For example, Knight had a temper and colorful language, and he was intense and tough. In contrast, Mike was a talkative coach, friendly, constantly coaching, helping the team, giving advice but with character in the way of leadership. He worked with the players’ confidence levels, and established trust.
After describing their characters, I identified that their leadership styles were totally different:
Bob Knight was a complex leadership style, I think that some time he acted like a coercive leader, but he switched to authoritative leader to motivate his team toward a goal “the will to win.” It is important to know how he explains the coach’s style “coach has to be a tyrant, a benign benefactor, a parent. There’s a lot about coaching that is like an actor. You have to make yourself into different things at different times.” There are some examples, when Knight told his players to follow up our rules, do exactly what we tell you and you will not lose. He behaved as a coercive leader, “do what I tell you” according to Goleman (P.36). Another example was during his practicing which was based on rules or standards well defined. Additionally, he had a special motivational toolkit which included push-ups, wind sprints, and colorful language. It was typical characteristics of an authoritative leader. This style has the most positive effect on climate according to Goleman (P.35). Thus, Knight was very clear about when he had to play each coach style. He piled up recognized records in the history of college basketball. He was also a successful leader despite of his style. According to article published by Snook, Perlow and Delacey “a surprising number’s of Knight’s former players have gone on to coach in college (such a Mike Krzyzewski of Duke University) and the NBA (including Isiah Thomas and Mike Woodson, as well as others).” His controversial leadership style has another characteristic that could fit as a coaching leader who developed coaches for the future. As a leader,
Knight had undoubtedly personal values, and special character that were important pieces within his effective leadership. For example, Knight received strong critics of his style and he also was fired, but he was hired for well-known colleges, universities and teams. I think that his big mistake was his lack of emotional intelligence. His short temper did not help him to be an integral leadership.
Mike Krzyzewski (Coach K) has an integral leadership style for three reasons. The first reason is that Coach K switched between two styles of leadership. Mike was a democratic leader who encouraged consensus among his players participation. He defined his own style “I do not want to be a manager or a dictator. I want to be a leader – and leadership is ongoing, adjustable, flexible and dynamic.” (p.95). It was an excellent definition of democratic leadership. Mike switched to a coaching leadership; when he wanted to know what his players were thinking. Then, he gave a constant coaching and feedback to his players. He was interested in teamwork, collaboration and communication among the players. Both styles of leaderships, democratic and coaching, have positive effects on working environment. The second reason, Mike has the ability to handle the relationships effectively with his players. His emotional intelligence was his main strength. His emotional capabilities consisted of:
1. Self-awareness. He worked on the confidence levels.
2. Self-management. There were not too many rules, but there was a discipline.
3. Social Awareness. He looked into his players, and understood what they need, feeling empathy.
4. Social skill. He became a visionary leadership who inspired others, and made strong influence on his players.
The final reason, Mike was in the level 5 leadership with his humility according to the article published by Colling. “Level 5 leader – an individual who blends extreme personal humility with intense professional will.” Mike showed a genuine personal humility blended with intense professional style. Mike credited “his coaching success and personal priorities to his upbringing.”
No comments:
Post a Comment