Organizational Behavior
Question 2
When I first got my full-time academic appointment, I was placed under Mr. Wiley O’Brien, a very people oriented and relational leader. The Dean was a well-learned character, with qualifications in research and teaching. Under his able leadership, the university experienced tremendous growth where more programs were introduced, more students enrolled, and more staff retained and recruited. He was not the kind of leader to do everything by himself – he was overly collaborative and always encouraged us to work as a team. The people under him felt truly empowered and were able to share the achievements of the university. His leadership style revolved around nurturing relationships along with inspiring people.
The Dean had perfected the art of making others feel welcome, valued and truly important. He was an ever visible figure within the faculty, the entire university facilities, and the community at large. He had an eye for potential in others, and gave his all to help develop it. Personally, Mr. O’Brien always encouraged me to pursue whatever I desired by involving others. Though he had an affable personality and inclusive nature, we all had the understanding that ultimately he was the one in charge and we respected him for that.
Coach Knight and Dean O’Brien are a stark contrast of each other. While the former was dictatorial, the latter was nurturing and people-oriented. Knight demanded of his players to always follow his rules and do exactly as they were told to avoid losing a chance to feature in the team or lose the game itself. On the other hand, Dean O’Brien was flexible with his juniors encouraging them to do as they pleased as long as it was morally questionable and against the organizational culture. Indeed Coach Knight was a typical example of a perfectionist with zero tolerance policy for even the smallest of mistakes. While militaristic leadership style brought the much sought-after win for the basketball team one too many times, he did not click with the people around him – players, assistant coaches, sportswriters and the faculty in general.
In view of this, I would be hesitant to hire the kind of Coach Knight as a leader because of his inability to connect with and inspire people he is responsible for. Coach Knight lacked key factors of emotional intelligence needed by a great leader: self-regulation, empathy, social skills and motivation.
Question 5
Does the childhood of an individual influence his/her leadership style later in life?
Indeed the values that a person picks up while growing have a great influence on their leadership style as an adult. Coach is on record attesting that he was raised by an overly strict father. His definition of discipline was shaped long time in childhood; “Discipline is doing what you have to do, and doing it as well as you possibly can, and doing it that way all the time” (Snook et al, 2).
In addition to possessing innate or hereditary elements, leadership is indeed a learned phenomenon which is later improved through experience, self-analysis as well as training. Knight’s discipline and desire for perfection has its roots from his strict working-class parents and close grandmother, coupled with his athletic and academic talents. His exaggerated concept of hard work was engrained in him while growing up. It is also true that his unfriendly leadership style as coach was a result of his parent’s absence and direct influence in his daily life during childhood as his grandmother was largely responsible for him (Snook et al, 1). The innate personality of Knight was thus a factor to his success as coach, but his personal experiences coupled with background dictated how he achieved his goals.
Reference:
Snook, Perlow, and Delecey: 2005. Coach Knight: The Will to Win. Article 9-406-043. Harvard Business School Publishing. Boston, MA.
