Situational contingency model
Situational contingency model
Name
Institution
Course
Fieldler model is a used to analyzing leadership traits. The situational contingency clearly states that different situations require different types of leaders (Ledlow & Coppola, 2011). Situational contingency stated that the leader is task oriented; a leader is strict and operates in an idea driven workplace. The situational contingency has three components which are task structure, leader member relationship, and leader position power (Northouse, 2010). Leadership member relations mainly entail the confidence, trust and the amount of respect that followers have for their leader. Second, leadership position power is the power that the leader is supposed to exercise in relation to the title in the group. Third, task structure the structure set to accomplish the set objectives. With this basic information the essay analysis two leadership cases that are “A matter of the heart” and “Will to win”.
According to Fiedler leadership is based on three dimensions that are task structure, leader member relationship, and position power (Fiedler, 1984). In the “The Will to Win” case Coach Knight is demanding and passionate in adopting a leadership style. He approaches the game in such a unique way. In this case, we could place his approach to the game in the task structure dimension. This is because he is always focused to achieving the best in His team. Regardless of the wins and losses he was always passionate for excellence. Knight always had the passionate to win, and he always worked hard to achieve it. From Knight’s experience, we can clearly see that he learned the value of leadership and discipline from his background. That is why in his daily interactions with the players, he demanded respect and it was accorded to him but in fear not willingly.
Knight in his position of a coach he exercised his position maximally; he would even throw players out of the practice for not working hard. Additionally, he would threaten them that if they do not work hard their scholarships will be taken away from them. This encouraged the players to work extra hard and to follow the laid down procedures and rules. This helped them to develop commitment in all that they did. This is because he believed that if a coach tolerates mistakes the child would grow in mistakes. He was not friendly in his relationship with the players. He believed that a coach must be tyrant and a benign benefactor (Lussier, 2012). He had a problem with confronting individuals. That is why even though he emphasized on discipline his team did not perform well. He only had the will to win but not to deal with his attitude and live with the people peacefully.
On the other hand, Krzyzewski was credited because of his coaching success and personal priorities. He developed a very good relationship with his players. He believed that maintaining a good relationship no matter the position you are in was very important. He always acknowledged the fact that there is time for everything. He always said that he wanted to be a leader but not a dictator. That is a leader who is flexible, ongoing, adjustable, and flexible. He always said that having few rules does not mean that the team is indiscipline. Unlike other coaches, he did not use a whistle most of the times but instead maintained an eye contact with his players. He advanced the team members to look into each other’s eyes when communicating to each other. By this, we can conclude that Krzyzewski had a good relationship with the players and he exercised his position as a coach appropriately. This is to say that Krzyzewski was effective in his leadership.
References
Fiedler, F. E., & Chemers, M. M. (1984). Improving leader effectiveness: The leader match concept (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Ledlow, G. R., & Coppola, M. N. (2011). Leadership for health professionals: Theory, skills, and applications. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett.
Lussier, R. N. (2012). Management fundamentals: Concepts, applications, skill development. Mason, Ohio: South-Western.
Northouse. P. G. (2010). Leadership theory and practice (5th ed. p. 90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
