Coach K and Coach Knight: An Analysis of Leadership and Management

Submitted on: February 10, 2009 Submitted To: Professor Inderrieden Submitted By: Luke Leonhard

Coach K and Coach Knight Major Case, Page 2 of 10 Introduction Coach K and Coach Knight both achieved great success in their coaching careers. Each maintain a legacy in sports, and respect each other very much. Collegiate basketball legends, Coach K and Knight created dynasties that will stand the test of time. There are stark contrasts, however, in their approach to success. Below is an overview of each coachs background and coaching career, and a comparison of their style in achieving goals.

Case Background Coach Robert Knight was born in 1940. Knights passionate desire to win began at an early age, along with his intense temper when he lost. His discipline and drive to perfection was rooted from his working-class parents and grandmother, and extended both into his athletic and academic talents. In his own collegiate career, Knight successfully graduated with a dual degree and played on an NCAA championship team under a short-tempered coach. (Snook: Knight, 8) Coach Michael K Krzyzewski was born 7 years after Knight. Like Knight, Coach K had a childhood familiar with the concept of hard work. His family also valued love and pride of their family. Based on guidance from his parents, Krzyzewski attended West Point, and was coached under Coach Knight, becoming captain of the team his senior year. (Snook: K, 8)

Luke Leonhard

Coach K and Coach Knight Major Case, Page 3 of 10 Coach Knight ended up working his way to an extraordinary career coaching Indiana University basketball. He developed a controversial coaching approach that garnered impressive wins. His fierce style, although admired by some, attracted a significant amount of negative attention. His methods ended up causing him to lose his coaching position at Indiana (Snook: Knight, 1). Coach Ks career at Duke followed suit to Knights impressive wins. His style, however, embraced concepts of family and trust over fear. His approach to coaching brought him to love his team to the point that passed on an opportunity to coach professional basketball. (Snook: K, 4-5)

Leadership A Matter of Upbringing? Looking at the upbringing of both coaches, there are consistencies in both. One striking similarity is that, while playing collegiate basketball, their coaches had tremendous tempers. Looking for comparisons, one may see Coach Ks childhood and West Point education as more regimented than Knight (Snook: K, 2). Knights absence of his parents daily and direct influence on his childhood may also play a part (Snook: Knight, 2). But are these early aspects of life a deciding factor in what type of leader each became? Although experts still deliberate through which segments of leadership can be learned, independent management researcher Jim Collins contends that achieving levels of leadership can be innate or acquired through experience, depending on an

Luke Leonhard

Coach K and Coach Knight Major Case, Page 4 of 10 individuals case (Collins: 75). Looking at Coach Knight and Coach K, Collins line of reasoning seems to hold true. The innate personality of each coach was a factor to being a successful coach, but personal experiences and background also played into how each achieved the goal.

Leadership A Matter of Emotional Intelligence? In the analysis of What Makes a Leader, Daniel Goleman outlined factors of emotional intelligence: a factor he advocates is required of a true leader (94). Goleman describes five components that are evident in such leaders: self-awareness, selfregulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill (95). Looking at these areas, one can see similarities and contrasts between the coaches. In looking at the history and methods of Coach K and Coach Knight, both exhibit motivation. Coach Ks motivation led him to treat his team like a family (Snook: K, 4). Although there were moments of tough love, he loved the players as much as the game of basketball itself. Coach Knights motivation was beyond winningit was to the extent of achieving a perfect game (Snook: Knight, 3). Goleman described a hallmark trait of motivation being a strong commitment to an organization. Despite Coach Knights forced change of college in his coaching career, he undoubtedly had a commitment to organizations, teams, and the game of basketball (Snook: Knight, 8). Coach Ks commitment to the Duke basketball organization extended to a feeling of

Luke Leonhard

Coach K and Coach Knight Major Case, Page 5 of 10 familyone that resulted in his decision to pass up the opportunity to coach the professional L.A. Lakers (Snook: K, 1). Both coaches also had empathy, a quality each exhibited in a unique fashion. Golemans concept of emotional intelligence described this skill as being able to treat people differently based on their emotions (96). On the outset, one may assume that Coach Knights empathy was entirely lacking. Digging deeper, however, it is evident that he did in fact empathize with people. Knight simply was often surrounded by driven, dedicated individuals that could take emotional hardship. In one case, where a player on Knights team was injured in a car accident, he adjusted his attitude, and dedicated a great deal of sympathetic time and effort to organize a fundraiser for the family, and awarded the student an honorary position on the team upon his return to school (Snook: Knight, 4). Coach Ks empathy was more apparent and well-received throughout his coaching career. He exhibited empathy through simple actions such as treating his teammates with respect and love when it made sense, but being hard on them when required, such as during a game or an intense practice (Snook: K, 3). Continuing to look at Golemans outline of emotional intelligence, however, stark differences begin to appear between the coaches. Specifically, Coach Knights selfregulation was not fully apparent, even to those who knew him best. Close friends and family had difficulty understanding his outward emotions toward others. And Knight openly admitted his temper was animated, although he attributed it to his passion and

Luke Leonhard

Coach K and Coach Knight Major Case, Page 6 of 10 drive to excellence (Snook: Knight, 6). Coach K, on the other hand, was regarded as having a strong and open evidence of self-regulation. Players who were not extremely close to him still felt as though they understood his emotions, as well as the reasoning for his feelings and approach to situations (Snook: K, 5). Goleman asserts that emotional intelligence is a trait that all great leaders must have (97). He goes further to say that it is a learning processas a person matures, they can with time acquire a higher emotional IQ (102). Looking at Coach Knights behavior, however, it is evident his character was not comprised of these ideals, and he wasnt looking to make changes in his approach. In his opinion, his method was warranted and was extremely functional (Snook: Knight, 7). His winning records were proof of its success.

Leadership A Matter of Good to Great? Jim Collins, in his analysis Level 5 Leadership, published his understanding of what set leadership aside for truly great companies (68). In his analysis, only 11 companies in 5 years passed his rigorous test of what was considered great (69). These companies had corporate legacies that seem to be analogous with the coaching legacies of both Knight and K. Professional will and determination are qualities that Collins describes as critical for true Level 5 leaders (70). Coach Knights drive beyond winning, to the goal of a perfect game, is a salient example of his will. Knight, like the CEOs and leadership

Luke Leonhard

Coach K and Coach Knight Major Case, Page 7 of 10 within great companies, could not stand only for mediocre performancehe was driven to achieve perfection in his coaching and in the people he led. A Level 5 leader understands that the bar of performance can and should always be raised. His coaching strategy often led him to benching star players in games if he felt their performance didnt merit playing time. And if that wasnt evidence of Knights will and commitment to perfection, Knights temper and outward signs of frustration let everyonehis players, family, and spectatorsknow when he felt someone was not working to their ability. Coach Ks will matched that of Knight, but his approach differed. His will to win was rooted in achieving team greatness. In building greatness as a team, Coach K knew he would win games. A team with dedicated and trusting players was the goal, and a consistent winning record was the outcome. He wasnt invested in making an individual great, so when players left, others still contributed to his teams greatness. Coach Ks method ensured that his greatness was sustainable. Another critical component of Collins Level 5 leadership is a focus on personal humility (Collins: 72). In looking at each case, Coach Knight seemed to accept credit for his success, yet apportion at least some blame to others for his failures, such as being fired from Indiana (Snook: Knight, 6-7). This behavior seems to be far from the model described for a Level 5 leader.

Luke Leonhard

Coach K and Coach Knight Major Case, Page 8 of 10 Coach K, on the other hand, took the concept of personal humility to the team level. Throughout the case, he accepted credit on behalf of the whole team, and let people understand that it was not him alone winning games (Snook: K, 5). In the same capacity, he accepted fault on behalf of his team. The family concept stressed throughout his career carried to this concept of humility.

Conclusion: Leadership of a Team versus Managing to a Perfect Game Simply put, both Coach K and Knight won basketball games. A component of both leadership and management is achieving the goals one sets out to accomplish. Reviewing each coachs past, it is apparent that both strived to win. The differences, however, were in the other goals each hoped to achieve. Coach Knight wanted to perfect the execution of a game. Coach K wanted to perfect a team. Coach Ks first and foremost goal was still to win basketball games. But the approach he took was transferrable to other areas of his players lives. The love, dedication, and compassion he shared with his team could not only score points on a basketball court, it could build strong relationships, families, and careers. He led his team to great successes, and helped instill his values within each of them. The flexible direction he provided to his team allowed them to reach their maximum potential. Coach Ks style is that of a leader. Coach Knights first and foremost goal was also to win games. The approach was through an extreme regimen and strict management of each player. If a player didnt

Luke Leonhard

Coach K and Coach Knight Major Case, Page 9 of 10 execute properly, Knight replaced him with a player who could be better managed. Coach Knights viewpoint on coaching worked well, although it was sometimes at the expense of the comfort of others. In some cases, this expense may be worth the outcome. Such a style, however, isnt indicative of sustainable leadership coveted by experts like Collins or Goleman. In conclusion, there are significant differences between Coach K and Knights style to reaching their goals. Although in many cases, one may think Coach Ks style is superior, it is also possible that in certain cases, an approach similar to Coach Knight may be more appropriate. Looking at the approaches and based on the expert opinions outlined in this text, Coach Ks style seems to align more appropriately with sustainable and flexible leadership. Coach Knights success appears to align more appropriately with consistent and demanding management.

Luke Leonhard

Coach K and Coach Knight Major Case, Page 10 of 10

References Snook, Perlow, and Delecey: 2005. Coach Knight: The Will to Win. Article 9-406-043. Harvard Business School Publishing. Boston, MA. Snook, Perlow, and Delecey: 2005. Coach K: A Matter of Heart. Article 9-406-044. Harvard Business School Publishing. Boston, MA. Collins: 2001. Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve. Harvard Business Review. Boston, MA. Goleman: 1999. What Makes a Leader? Harvard Business Review. Boston, MA.

Luke Leonhard