What college basketball teaches about leadership

For our Leading People class we had to analyse an HB case on leadership. It covered two college basketball trainers - Couch Knight and Couch K who showed two very different leadership styles. Both of them shared result orientation and perfectionism, and both of them are outstanding successful couches. However, each of them achieved results differently. We've looked at different leadership dimensions, like...

There are 6 key leadership styles (as defined in HBR article by Daniel Goleman):

- coercive  or “do what I tell you” style

- authoritative (visionary)  or “come with me”

- affiliative or “people come first”

- democratic or “what do you think”

- pacesetting or “do as I do”

- couching or “try this”

While definitely every leadership style deserves its place under the sun relying on only one can be dangerous. From the case we have seen that Couch Knight was a typical coercive leader. He was demanding the perfect game and demanding the players to do what he told them to do. That did not undermine his achievements as a couch, however, definitely gave him some bad publicity and headache all the way up to the dismissal. Take alone the "throw the chair" situation during one of the games! 

Couch K on the other hand embraced to practice a wide range of leadership styles. He primarily used affiliative style speaking of love with his players, nurturing trust between team members. However, when needed he definitely was coercive and pacesetting.  His players loved him and he loving them refused to take the 40 Mio dollar contract with NBA... 

During the class we were asked, which Couch we would prefer for our MBA sub-team and for ourselves in daily life. The opinions diverged as particular styles are required for specific moments. Like when in crisis or under time pressure and major turnaround coercive style would be the most appropriate. Yet, when the “war” is over for leaders who exercised this style it is rather difficult to deliver a different leadership and change perception of own self.

At the end we all came to the conclusion that as leaders we are to develop ourselves in order to be able to apply different leadership styles in different situations. Like with youngsters it is probably more likely we use coercive style telling them what to do while with mature personalities we are most likely to get onto the democratic approach.

And whatever we do let’s not overdo it. At the end the process of getting to the results should be as pleasures as the moment of holding the trophy in the hands. As leaders we should not forget that it is not always that means justify the ends.

And what is your core leadership style? Who do you want to be Couch Knight or Couch K? Which leadership is getting the results for you?