LDR 600 Case Study Analysis Paper 1: A Tale of Two Coaches
LDR 600 Case Study Analysis Paper 1: A Tale of Two Coaches
In reading about Coach Knight & Coach Krzyzewski, their humble Army beginnings, their influences, & their careers, the reader notes that both coaches possess the six traits required for effective leadership. LDR 600 Case Study Analysis Paper 1: A Tale of Two Coaches. These characteristics are: drive, motivation, integrity, confidence, cognitive ability, & task knowledge (Northouse, 2013, Chapter 1). In reading both cases, each coach demonstrated that they both, were perhaps “born” leaders. Both possessed each of the above mentioned traits & added multiple others to their arsenal. Coach Knight’s drive, motivation, & confidence played a huge part in his success, as did his determination, demand for perfection, & his “no favorites” policy. This coach is more of a manager, by definition, because he focused on the tasks & followed a list of duties diligently. He cared about his players, but that came second to what the job entailed (Snook, Perlow, & Delacey, 2005).
Permalink: https://ulcius.com/ldr-600-case-stu…analysis-paper-1/
Coach Krzyzewski, possessed these same traits, but his passion for people, his love of the game & players, & his fair disposition were the reasons for his success. Clearly, he knew the game well & his coaching was excellent, but his integrity, authenticity, & heart stood out for those players. This coach is definitely more of a leader, because he inspired his players, showed his care & concern, & wasn’t afraid to be open, honest, & willing to adapt. His leadership style made his players want to do their best, not because they were scared, but because they wanted their coach to be proud. His humbleness in his decision to remain at Duke after he was offered an opportunity with an NBA team that came with an enormous salary shows his heart for the game, his players, & for the university that supported him from the beginning (Snook, Perlow, & Delacey, 2005).
Coach Knight’s power bases are Expert, Legitimate, & Coercive, making him more of a Position Power style of leader; Coach Kzyzewski’s power bases are also Expert, & Legitimate, but more Referent, making him more of a Personal Power leader (Northouse, 2013, p. 29). Coach Knight was respected for what he did, but wasn’t “adored” in the way the Coach K was. Coach K likely did bench players appropriately, but wasn’t known for his punishment tactics, he was known for his heart.
Each coach’s specific traits influenced their leadership differently. Coach Knight was a powerhouse; very demanding, outspoken, & prone to verbal (and physical) outbursts. This did affect & influence his leadership in the way of perceived threats to some extent. His focus was on winning, period. Coach K was a different type of powerhouse. He knew the game well, & knew what it took to make an effective team. He was focused on the overall cohesiveness of the team & mentoring them effectively so they worked together as a team to win. His focus was on the people; then the win.
The “big five” personality factors discussed by Northrup are neuroticism, extroversion, openness, agreeableness, & conscientiousness (Northouse, 2013, p. 45). Based on the reading & comparing each coach’s traits & history the reader can conclude that Coach Knight tend toward neuroticism & extroversion as shown with his outspoken behaviors, hostility at times, & his very outward socialness. Coach K displays more openness, agreeableness, & conscientiousness with his “heart”-centered approach to leadership. His players spoke about his tendency to use the word “love” & it was clear that he meant it in all senses of the word (Snook et al., 2005).
The conclusion this reader comes to is that both coaches are extremely effective, but for very different reasons. Depending on the personality types of the majority of the players, both had the ability to push their players far beyond what an individual might think they could do; either positively or negatively. Both coaches were extraordinary leaders with mostly opposite focuses but gaining the same results in the end; winning. LDR 600 Case Study Analysis Paper 1: A Tale of Two Coaches
References
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory & Practice (6th ed.). [GCU eBook]. Retrieved from https://viewer.gcu.edu/RECVWC
Snook, S. A., Perlow, L. A., & Delacey, B. J. (2005, December 1). Coach K: A Matter of the Heart. Harvard Business School, 1-12. Retrieved from https://lc-grad2.gcu.edu/learningPlatform/externalLinks/externalLinks.html?operation=redirectToExternalLink&externalLink=http%3A%2F%2Fgcumedia.com%2Fdigital-resources%2Fharvard-business-school-press%2F2005%2Fcoach-k_-a-matter-of-the-heart_ebook_1e.php
Snook, S. A., Perlow, L. A., & Delacey, B. J. (2005, December 1). Coach Knight: The Will to Win. Harvard Business School, 1-14. Retrieved from https://lc-grad2.gcu.edu/learningPlatform/externalLinks/externalLinks.html?operation=redirectToExternalLink&externalLink=http%3A%2F%2Fgcumedia.com%2Fdigital-resources%2Fharvard-business-school-press%2F2005%2Fcoach-knight_-the-will-to-win_ebook_1e.php
Module 1 DQ 1
Identify & discuss the six trait characteristics in the trait approach to leadership. If one does not have these traits, can he or she still be a leader? Explain your position.
Solution 1
According to Kirkpatrick & Locke (2013) the six trait characteristics of a leader are: drive, motivation, integrity, confidence, cognitive ability, & task knowledge. They asserted that possessing these six traits separated leaders from followers. Furthermore, Kirkpatrick & Locke (2013) believe that these traits can be learned, instilled at birth, or both. It is difficult to say whether possessing these traits or lack thereof make an individual a leader or a follower. This is evidenced by the number of studies which have
been conducted in the last century or so. Northouse (2013) list six major studies into trait leadership characteristics each with a different number of unique characteristics. I postulate that Kirkpatrick & Locke’s six traits are but a snap shot of those characteristics which defined leadership traits at the time of the study. While the traits they put forth are still relevant & undoubtedly assist in making one a leader, they do not tell the whole story.
If we look at each of six studies Northouse lists, which occurred over the last 70 years, each decade has a different list than the next. While some traits remain the same other do not. I would say that situational factors have an effect on leaders & what traits they learn to emulate. Good leaders, I feel, are born with traits which assist them in
becoming leaders, but their born traits are not enough to be great. Great leaders in turn learn which traits they need to emulate to elevate them to that level. Which traits they choose to learn & then emulate are products of their environment. For example, an assembly line manager in the 1960’s will utilize different traits than one of today. Many social situations have changed in between those decades & the same traits that were once effective may or may not be effective in the present era. Additionally, what people value can change & thereby affect what traits are effective in leading. For instance, if integrity is no longer valued or emphasized as mush that trait will be less important to a leader. The traits are admired & respected often change with each generation. Thus leaders & trait leadership theory will be chasing the next trait characteristics that will define a leader of the future.
Northhouse, P. (2013). Trait Approach. Leadership: Theory & practice (6th ed). Washington, DC: Sage. LDR 600 Case Study Analysis Paper 1: A Tale of Two Coaches