The Tale of Coach Knight
It is difficult to identify the leadership style of coach Bobby Knight among all the tirades and temper tantrums, nevertheless one will try; indeed this author remembers where she was the very day that Coach Knight hurled the notorious chair in response to his anger (Puma, 2007). As the bell rang for 2nd hour P.E. class, the conversation of the day surrounded the actions of Coach Knight and the inactions of Indiana University to discipline him. Coach Knight appears to lead by position power with his aggressive, controlling behavior; of the big five personality traits identified in Trait theory, he appears to be high on neuroticism due to his open hostilities (Northouse, 2010). He manages more than he leads as he micro-manages every area of his player’s lives both on and off the field (Puma, 2007). He also appears to be high on extraversion, although he does not appear to be either sociable or have a positive energy, he is very high on assertiveness (Northouse, 2010).
He seems to be high on openness as he is highly informed about his players and his game, and high on conscientiousness due to his decisiveness and his infatuation with being in control (Northouse, 2010). The article painted a picture of an agreeable Knight from the University perspective because the University believed that he was loyal and cared deeply about his players but all other evidence points to low on the agreeable scale (Northouse, 2010; Puma, 2007). It was the position of how much Knight cared for his players that Indiana University took for many years in defending their decision to keep Coach Knight amidst his childish behavior and low display of Emotional intelligence (Northouse, 2010; Puma, 2007). In accordance with the Skills approach Coach Knight seems to be high on technical and conceptual skills but very low on human skills; leading and managing to the same degree (Northouse, 2010). He does not appear to lead from a Skills approach however as his leadership style does not appear to progress in any way from start to finish (Northouse, 2010).
According to Fiedler’s contingency model, one can say he is matched to his situation as a leader and in fact he may have never been a leader in any other situation as no field but sports or perhaps construction would tolerate his behavior (Northouse, 2010). One could truly make a case for the fact that Coach Bobby Knight’s success was contingent upon his situation with his power being derived almost solely from his position (Northouse, 2010). Knight’s position power was strong and his task was of high structure; this could be a huge factor in his success (Northouse, 2010). Although Knight surely used Path/Goal to accomplish most tasks, this style is simply a functional reality in the field of coaching (Northouse, 2010).
In comparison to Blake and Mouton’s leadership grid, judging by the article sited below, Knight would appear to be a 9.9 from the University perspective, that would be “ Team Management where work is accomplished from interdependence through a common stake in the organizations purpose” but from the player’s perspective he may be closer to a 9.1, “Authority Compliance Management where efficiency in operations results from arranging conditions of work in such a way that human elements interfere to a minimum degree;” all Bobby Knight appeared to care about was winning (Northouse, 2010; Puma, 2007).
Although the University officials of that time may have defended him as a 9.9 one could also argue that Knight was not a team player because his image was not a good reflection on the organization (Northouse, 2010; Puma, 2007). In regards to the Team approach Coach Knight shows signs of Internal task support; this would be a given in the field of coaching. He shows no signs of Internal relational support; he seems to work mostly from External environmental circumstance (Northouse, 2010; Puma, 2007). Coach Knight had a high retention and graduation rate among his players however this was a fact because it was a requirement. Coach Knight would accept no less from his team; he did not inspire this level of success, he demanded it. Coach Knight’s overall leadership style could even be classified as Pseudo-transformational. The article states that “Knight seemed to thrive in the role of out of control dictator;” the University continued to site his reputation of good players both “on and off the court;” however one could argue that Soviet athletes of the same time period were exceptional both on and off the athletic field because they feared for their lives (Puma, 2007). Therefore, it could also be true that Bobby Knight’s players were successful because they feared abusive behavior