Oath-goal leadership theory Analysis Paper
House’s oath-goal leadership theory, measures the effectiveness of the leader, the leadership style and also the subordinate as a factor. The reason behind this study refers to examining and comparing the coaching skills of Bobby Knight and Mike Skewers. The path-goal theory is a prime example of leadership that may vary from one situation to the next perspective.
This theory utilizes the leader as the catalyst in order for the follower to find success.
When applying this particular theory to athletics coaches, such as Knight and Skewering stepped into the leadership role which provides a well-lit path for the braininess who in this environment would be the athletes. This task is accomplished by clarification of the goals, reduction of any potential road blocks and an Increase In opportunity for the athlete’s own personal gain. When the actions of the leader step over-board this has a detrimental effect in the outcome of the athlete.
In relation to the path-goal theory, his style appears to be the directive style which is more authoritative and task oriented. According to “The Will to Win” about Coach Knight there have been mixed opinion about his leadership.
Some described Knight s being too difficult on his players a good example “a typical Coach Knight practice taught his game of basketball. HIS motivational toolkit included push-ups, wind sprints and Insulting verbal barbs. Some observers felt he pushed his players too hard, beyond reasonable physical and psychological limits.
Biographer John Feinting saw it this way :”(Snood at el. , AAA, up).
Others found his leadership style to be worthy of praise and grandeur. “You know there were times… When if I had had a gun I think I would have shot him.
And there were other times when I wanted to put my arms around him, hug him, and tell him that I loved him. -alias Thomas, quoted in Season on the Brink, p. 8 (Snood at el. , AAA, up). Many of the ones that found an appreciation for his leadership style chose to gone and become basketball coaches themselves.
Hence the leader taught others to become leaders. Upon taking this same theory and looking at Coach K, the viewpoint is somewhat different. Although they both come from a military background Coach K seems to take more time with the players building better interpersonal relationships of trust with one another which helps to build a stronger team. Grant Hill described his relationship with Coach K as him being “Like a parent” (Snood at el. , Bibb, up). This type of leadership style Is representative AT an Concealment-relented style.
I nerve are Nell expectations. The leader gives support but the subordinate it motivated and equipped to meet the high challenges. For these two coaches, the only thing that could potentially be detrimental is Coach Knight’s verbal abuse and pushing the players too far. Leader-Member Exchange (ELM) is a concept that is based on a two-way relationship kindled between a leader and a subordinate. The concept leads to a yawed relationship between the leader and the subordinate (Morehouse et al. , 2010, p.
162). There is definitely some correlation of the ELM.
According to the articles, Coach Knight ran a pretty tight ship and maintained a great deal of control over the team with very little loosening of the ties which allowed for very little freestyle on the behalf of the players. According to the article, he was a “perfectionist” with little room for error. The players that were not considered to be in the in group were on the bench which hurt his relationship with them.
Behaviors such as tossing chairs at layers, assistant coaches or even his son are not acceptable.
All of these acts even though many games have been won despite the acts do not represent proper behavior (Snood at el. , AAA, up). The players that were not considered to be in the in group were on the bench which hurt his relationship with them. Coach K on the other hand used the philosophy of treating the team like player like they were his own family.
This built a closer bond and a stronger foundation for his team relationship. For his players this interpersonal relationship gave them a sense of empowerment (Snood at el. Bibb, up).
According to Morehouse, successful dyads in the acquaintance phase begin to develop greater trust and respect for each other (Morehouse et al. , 2010, p. 167).
They also tend to focus less on their own self-interests and more on the purposes and goals of the group. Coach K appears to have found a great success in this which made him very success as a leader of his basketball teams. Conclusion In conclusion, path-goals and ELM are two very important principles for leaders to utilize for guiding subordinates into the right direction obtaining the success of their outlined goal.
The most prevailing lessons learned by this author have been the interpersonal relationship is paramount. After having read the two different articles on these two outstanding coaches, I see how there is such a compelling difference in their leadership styles. I have watched Bobby Knight on T.
V. He career speaks for its self but I can see where it could use a little work and some anger management therapy would be good. Coach K on the other hand may get angry, but his style of dealing with the young men leaves them with their pride and dignity still intact.