The concept of leadership

The concept of leadership has been in existence since time and memorial. Scholars such as Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt (2001) and Yukl (2002) have developed several approaches to guide people in the best directions to run organization and businesses (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). The manuscript within is an analysis of two different leadership styles Coach K: A Matter of the Heart and Coach Knight:
The Will to Win. The case studies are based on different ideologies. However, the analytical debate in the paper will be based on leader-member change and the path-goal theory. Coach K trained the basketball team at Duke University under the rule that “Don’t do anything detrimental to yourself. Because it’s harmful to you, it’ll be detrimental to our program and Duke University” (p. 3) (Snook, Perlow & DeLacey, 2005). On the other hand, Knight trained basketball players in Indiana University-based on self-enjoyment regardless of its consequences. He reports: “I’ve certainly done my share of dumb things some of which I’m genuinely sorry for and some that in my perverse way, I still kind of enjoy” (p. 1) (Snook, Perlow & DeLacey, 2005).
The two coaches have different rules used to guide the basketball teams in the various institutions. Knight and K grant the players the freedom to make a choice based on their defined rules. The freedom given to the team is a clear indicator that both K and Knight work in line with the path-goal theory. Robert J. House, the profounder of the theory believed a leader’s behavior is contingent on team satisfaction, motivation and performance. Therefore, a good leader gives a clear direction, creates high goals and participates in goal achievement supporting the group (Vecchio, Justin & Pearce, 2008). In line with the ideology of Robert, Coach K is a good leader compared to Knight. K develops a rule that is of benefit to him, the team, and the organization and participates in the achievement of the goal. Knight produces a standard that is detrimental to the team and the organization as well as his reputation leading to the downfall of the Indiana University Basketball team (Yukl, 2002).
Leader-member change (LMX) is a principle that guides the procedures through which leaders and the group can employ to achieve their goal. The laws call for a friendly, respectful and understanding relationship between the team and the leader in the implementation of the change. The interaction enables the leaders and the team to interact freely developing present and future solutions to a given situations. Coach K has a strong LMX because he intends to leave the team and convince them that he is still part of them and holds them dearly in his heart. On the contrary, Knight has no LMX feature. Upon being interviewed over the laid allegations against him, he is not sincerely remorseful. Furthermore, he is full of himself than the team or the institution (Chen et al., 2005).  Conclusion
In conclusion, the two articles express different dominant traits and leadership styles. Coach K represents a dominant trait of love, care, and obedience based on the agreed rule by the team and the coach. Hence, a democratic style of leadership. Knight expresses a dominant trait of selfishness based on personal gain and not considering team or the institution hence, an authoritarian type of leadership. From the case, it is clear Coach K is a more efficient leader that respects and considers the feelings of the team and the institution as opposed to Knight. The cases are a delicious lesson in leadership as they demonstrate the essence of leader-team interaction in achieving organization goals. The knowledge can make one a better leader by embracing teamwork and holding the group in their hearts.


References
Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The Leadership Styles of Women and Men. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 781-797.
Snook, S. A., Perlow, L. A., & DELACEY, B. J. (2005). Coach K: A Matter of the Heart. Harvard Business School, 406-044.
Snook, S. A., Perlow, L. A., & Delacey, B. J. (2005). Coach Knight: The Will to Win. Harvard Business School Pub.
Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. (2008). The Utility of Transactional and Transformational Leadership for Predicting Performance and Satisfaction within a Path‐Goal Theory Framework. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(1), 71-82.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-Member Exchange as a Mediator of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Followers' Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420-432.
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in Organizations.