Introduction
Fielder defines a leader as the individual in the group who is given a task of directing and coordinating task relevant group activities or who in the absence of a designated leader, carries the primary responsibility for performing these functions in the group (Anwar, 1983; Gareth, 1998). Fielder’s model of leadership is termed as a contingency model of leadership because the model assumes that the leader’s contribution to group performance depends on both his leadership style in terms of either task orientation or person orientation, and the favorableness of the situation for the leader.
Case Analysis
Coach Knight: A Will to Win
Robert Montgomery is a coach who had achieved accolades that many people would admire, if not wish to acquire. He gained his reputation from the kind of success that he had achieved as a basketball coach at the Indiana University. What stood out amidst the accolades that he amassed were the strategies that he used. In essence, he had a philosophy which was based on the premise that if you or one does what one is supposed to do and work towards what one is supposed to work, then one is likely to emerge as a winner. According to his philosophy, winning was based on the basis of thorough preparation, thus, for him success was based on how far one was willing to go during preparation. In spite of the coaching accolades, his term as a coach ended on a dismissal where he was sacked due to complains against his coaching approach.
According to the Fiedler’s contingency model, this coach was not able to match his model to his situation. This is because he was at loggerheads with those who were under him due to his tactics as a coach. Despite the fact that he won, his success was not enjoyed by those who belonged to his team. This had an impact on his effectiveness as a coach that led his sacking.
Coach K: A Matter of the Heart
Coach Krzyzewskiville was a coach who had developed a team that became reputable during his time as the head coach at the Duke University. This was because of the philosophy and the approach which he considered as he approached his style of leadership. According to him, everyone in the team was important. He believed that his role as a leader was to develop a team that would bring out the best that a person could offer. In this case, he worked towards establishing a relationship with his team that gelled out to form a team of committed persons (Smyth, 1989). This eventually carved a team that was based on commitment. In essence, his leadership approach was an approach that enabled the team members to match the situation. This was reflected in the way he handled progress and the challenges which faced the team.
Situational Leadership
Based on this approach, the case analyses above illustrate some of the leadership styles that were used by these two coaches. In the first case, the leadership approach which was adopted was based on telling. That is, the coach was the leader who had a say in all aspects regarding the team. Communication was one way and the coach was the one who informed all the other members on what was supposed to be done. In the second scenario, the approach which was embraced was the selling approach.
In this case, the leader provided the direction. In as much as he was the one who was providing the direction, he also provided socio – emotional support. In this case, the leader was able to get the support of the team in the kinds of approaches that he undertook.
References
Anwar, R. (1983). Organizational Behaviour. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Gareth, M. (1998). Images of Organization: The Executive Edition. New York: Berrett Koehler Publishers.
Smyth, J. (1989). Critical Perspectives On Educational Leadership. New York: Routledge.