The style and situational approach bring me back to the glory days of high school football. High school football in Western Pennsylvania is more than an activity for some – it is a way of life. Games under the Friday night lights are both entertaining and come with high stakes. The highest stake in the matter is that of the coaches. Salaries of coaches who often also hold the title of athletic director can run up to six digits. The fate of their next contract weighs in the balance of the performance of 16, 17 and 18 year old young men.
After my junior year, the coach that previously had much success at my high school chose to resign due to pressure from the community. Soon after the school began the process of hiring a replacement. What unfolded throughout our new coaches’ hiring in the spring, and eventual resignation after my senior year perfectly combines the situational and style approaches. Northouse’s (2013) definition of the task behaviors and relationship behaviors that our new coach displayed would soon come to fruition to guide and transform his leadership style. The idea that a leader would change his/her approach based on the situation or skill of subordinates would also prove evident (Northouse 2013).
I believe what I am about to tell you is a hybridization of these two approaches (main focus on style). I will take you through why our coach changed his style to fit the situation. Though Northouse (2013) stipulates that leaders often have a dominant style and then a backup. My contrary option is that my senior football season our coach began a cycle through the styles in this order: Middle of the road, country club, team, authority-compliance, and then finally, impoverished.
Since I was a senior and high in academic and athletic standing within the school, I was one of the first to meet our new coach, Mr. Coyote. Upon first meeting him, he was very middle-of-the-road. He displayed very balanced goals and seemed quite malleable since he was a first time coach.
After our first team meeting in the spring of my junior year (I was considered a senior as far as football goes since it is a fall sport) Coach Coyote displayed leadership style that fit the situation – he was very much a country club leader. He worried very much about “the attitudes and feelings of the people, making sure the personal and social needs of followers are met” (Northouse 2013). He would tell us that it was our team, and he was just there to lead us and help us to our goals.
When summer rolled around, a very different style emerged. Throughout summer training and preseason camp, Coach Coyote adopted the team style. He “[acted] determined, “[got] issues out into the open”, and “[made] priorities clear” (Northouse 2013). He was working with us to prepare the team for the upcoming season. Team moral was still very high as the change seemed very positive.
This style of team management leadership continued until the team struggled mid-season. Suddenly, the coach didn’t seem to care as much about the team as he did reaching his goals. His main concern rested in winning at any cost. The cost was his team wondering what happened to the man who stood before them and told them told them it was their team. Moral was low and conflict between leader-subordinate flourished.
After reaching the playoffs with a sub-par record, we found ourselves at halftime of our playoff game. The score: 35 – 0. All hope was lost. Suddenly Coach Coyote seemed completed detached. He lead as a ‘players coach’, then acted as one of us to achieve our goals, next he ruled with an iron fist, and finally – his style changed to that of impoverish management. He acted “uninvolved and withdrawn” from that point until after the game where his emotions left us the feeling that he was “indifferent, noncommittal, resigned, and apathetic” (Northouse 2013).
I do often wonder if they cycle began again for Coach Coyote, as he resigned from our school and found employment elsewhere. The one thing is clear of the shifting styles of leadership is that they changed due to the coach’s self interest. He proved to be what Northouse (2013) defined as ‘Opportunism’. Though one of the weaknesses of using this style approach is that it is difficult to measure outcome (Northouse 2013), I can say that no one benefited from the way our leader shifted his styles.
Reference:
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.