Leadership Philosophies
![Picture](/uploads/2/6/0/7/26072454/640781076.jpg)
Leadership
is defined as the process whereby an individual influences a group of
individuals to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2010). Leadership
includes the ability to motivate individuals in a two-way or give and take relationship. Leadership is not purely a trait
characteristic that is possessed by the leader. It is a quality that is
transactional and the leader is influenced by both their subordinates as much
as the subordinates are influenced by the leader (Northouse, 2010).
Motivation is based upon the behavior patterns of the leader/coach and the
interpretations of those behaviors by the players or employees that are being
coached. Motivation has been defined as the psychological and physical
condition that causes an individual to give effort in satisfaction of personal
needs and wants (Halappa, 2013). There are three essential characteristics that leaders
can display to create motivation in players (Northouse, 2010). First, the
actions of the leader must include taking responsibility to tackle complex
organizational problems, Next, a leader must be able to express their dominance
and influence over their players. Lastly, being a leader means that you must be committed to
the social good of the organization, and make sacrifices that no other
member of the team will make (Northouse, 2010).
Change is inevitable and a strategy to integrate
change is an integral part of being an effective leader or coach. Most individuals find it much easier to do
the same old thing and find it difficult to be creative to find a new and
better method to complete a part of his job.
In all aspects of society nothing is stationary including the evolution of the sport market. The sports market,
no matter what level, is becoming more globally and technology integrated. This is making the sports market more
individualized and creating more competition for all organized sports (Clawson, 2009; Helfat et al., 2009). Organizations must adapt to and expose
changes in their cultural environment, while looking for opportunities to
change through technology, organizational, and strategic innovation (Helfat et al., 2009). The sports environment is very dynamic and heavily
saturated with people that want to get involved in it. As a sports organization program or leader,
the ability to be creative is tied to organizational change and
adaptation. Organizational changes should be made in a strategic manner and the concept of strategic change applies in three levels: first organizational, second work groups, and third individual (Clawson, 2009). These levels are all integral parts to becoming successful against sports organizations in the same market and to gaining a competitive advantage. The organization level is similar to a baseball program and its leadership philosophies, or an athletic department and their leadership philosophies. The work group level applies to the coaching staff and their leadership skills in directing players in their individual positions and specialized aspects of the game of baseball. For example, this might include you pitching coach, hitting instructor, infielders coach, or more. Lastly, the individual level applies to the nature of working with coaches one on one to develop their coaching styles. As a head coach you are not just a coach to players but you are also a mentor to your coaches.
There are a variety of frames or models for strategic thinking and most models continue to relate to each other or build off of one another. Some of the more common models for strategic changed discussed are the FIT model, growth, intent, ecological, revolutionary, experience, Innovator’s Dilemma, and good to great (Clawson, 2009, p. 81).
There are a variety of frames or models for strategic thinking and most models continue to relate to each other or build off of one another. Some of the more common models for strategic changed discussed are the FIT model, growth, intent, ecological, revolutionary, experience, Innovator’s Dilemma, and good to great (Clawson, 2009, p. 81).
Fit Models
![Picture](/uploads/2/6/0/7/26072454/2514274.png?1397711073)
FIT was developed by Kenneth Andrews incorporates nine basic criteria for evaluating of the strengths of an organizational strategic change philosophy and methods to implement the strategy (Andrews, 1980). These nine criteria questions are to be answered for the clarification of the direction in the organizational strategy. Most questions in this model tend to be answered in yes or no fashion but do provide a template for assessing “fit” for appropriate competitive market opportunities and communication for strategic change. The questions used in this model are as follows:
An extension of the fit model was a model called SWOT that was also developed by Andrews. SWOT stands for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (Andrews, 1980). Again the idea is to ask question about the current state of the organizational and market available. The answers to these questions here, displayed in Figure 1, are more descriptive and give more definition to the strategic direction. The questions developed are: (a) What new capabilities do we want to develop? (b) How do we create new possibilities? (c) What do we need to learn in order to develop new capabilities? (d) How do we partner to build shared expectancies (Clawson, 2009)? I like this model due to its simplicity and its far more discussion based answering system. The answers to these four questions are far more descriptive in nature and bring more attention to the process of strategic thinking. Utilizing these questions to develop a strategic plan to addressing your team can enhance your vision for leadership.
Both models serve as a set of focal questions so that you as a coach can effectively plan for strategic change. In planning for an upcoming season or taking over a new baseball program, use either of these sets of questions to effectively organize positive growth for your team.
- How has the strategy (team strategy) been made clear and identifiable?
- Does the strategy fully exploit domestic(team) and international (league) opportunities?
- Is the strategy consistent with current and future corporate (program or team) capabilities?
- Is the strategy internally consistent?
- Does the strategy present a manageable risk level?
- Does the strategy match the personal values and goals of senior (administrative) management?
- Does the strategy match the company’s societal (community) contribution goals?
- Does the strategy stimulate to action?
- Does the market place seem to be responding to the strategy?
An extension of the fit model was a model called SWOT that was also developed by Andrews. SWOT stands for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (Andrews, 1980). Again the idea is to ask question about the current state of the organizational and market available. The answers to these questions here, displayed in Figure 1, are more descriptive and give more definition to the strategic direction. The questions developed are: (a) What new capabilities do we want to develop? (b) How do we create new possibilities? (c) What do we need to learn in order to develop new capabilities? (d) How do we partner to build shared expectancies (Clawson, 2009)? I like this model due to its simplicity and its far more discussion based answering system. The answers to these four questions are far more descriptive in nature and bring more attention to the process of strategic thinking. Utilizing these questions to develop a strategic plan to addressing your team can enhance your vision for leadership.
Both models serve as a set of focal questions so that you as a coach can effectively plan for strategic change. In planning for an upcoming season or taking over a new baseball program, use either of these sets of questions to effectively organize positive growth for your team.
Porter's Five Forces
![Picture](/uploads/2/6/0/7/26072454/181474.png?423)
Porters 5 Forces is another model that builds upon thinking strategically to create advantages against industry competitors (other teams). Porter’s five forces have an overall theme of assessing a organizational advantages compared with the industry competitors in the same market (Porter, 1985). Porter’s 5 Forces are the new entrants, the power of suppliers, the power of customers, the threat of substitution, and the core capabilities of a company to compete with others (Porter, 1985). Poster (1985) explains that the new entrants appear as other competitors trying to enter into the existing market (sport market). These new entrants can be held back through barriers like geographic location, patent protection, and establishment of a shared market and more. Buyers or customers have the power as a force to drive the company to offer certain products (Porter, 1985). The suppliers influence what the company can provide to the buyers and the substitutes can threaten a company’s survival by taking over what a company can provide to the buyers (Porter, 1985). The substitutes are the competitive market products that emulate the existing products but in a cheaper and diluted fashion. Finally, in this model if the companies (teams) strengths don’t provide enough in the industry the company will fade out. In the Porters 5 Forces the new entrants, suppliers, customers and substitutes all point back the competitive industry competitors as seen in the Figure 2.
The FIT model, SWOT, and Porters 5 Forces full analyze the current status of the organizational strategy and look for strength and weakness for the further strategic thinking and development. Even though these models were created for the business market, they can all be applied to the sports market and the coaching environment.
The FIT model, SWOT, and Porters 5 Forces full analyze the current status of the organizational strategy and look for strength and weakness for the further strategic thinking and development. Even though these models were created for the business market, they can all be applied to the sports market and the coaching environment.
Growth and Intent
![Picture](/uploads/2/6/0/7/26072454/2367897.png?397)
Growth, intent, and ecological are further models that can be applied to investing in strategic change for a sport organization. Most organizations have room for growth and this model emphasizes a combination of four main areas for growth. These areas include existing customers, new customers, existing needs, and new needs (Ansoff, 1957). These can be seen in a comparison to the current state of the existing capabilities of your team. The existing customers are similar to the existing players, new customers are similar to new recruits or incoming players, existing needs are current weaknesses or gaps of the team, and the new needs are the projected goals for growth in the team. These areas can be combined to point out that no matter how old or mature the market is there are ways to identify a larger potential for growth and opportunity (Ansoff, 1957). Charan and Tichy (1998) later revised this model and turned it into the 2 x 2 grid you seen in Figure 3. This model shows that no matter how “mature” the market is the current customers and product is, it is possible to find a broader potential opportunity (Charan & Tichy, 1998). This model is so useful for a baseball coach that has been hired to turn a program around and to find ways to rejuvenate an older program that has lost its way.
![Picture](/uploads/2/6/0/7/26072454/8978691.png?399)
There are two different intent models called the BCG or Boston Consulting Group and the Ecological model (Clawson, 2009). The intent model is a guide for an organization to create vision for the future direction or a plan of attack for growth in an inexperience area of the market (Clawson, 2009). This model gives ideas of future growth for the strategic change in the organization. The organization will invest time and effort on their current endeavors but look toward the future for a plan for success. The BCG used in Figure 4 was developed by the 1970’s Boston’s Consulting Group for strategic planning. This intent model used a planning matrix for categorizing parts of the organization called units (Clawson, 2009). This model categorizes the current organizational strategic plans of action into stars, cash cows, dogs, and problem children (Clawson, 2009). The “star” is the unit of business or team with a high market growth and share and is the best overall category. The “dog” has low market share and low market growth and is usually sold off. The “problem child” has a high market growth or potential with a low current market share. Lastly the “cash cow” has a high market share with little potential for growth. Once the team unit is categorized, a strategic plan of action can be put into place for organizational/program success. This falls into an intent model because it is still using future vision for the strategic plan. As a coach the ability to envision the potential that lies in the players or program you coach is very important. This model seems to be a great fit for any coach that is trying to categorize particular units for talent level of his team.
Innovator's Dilemma
![Picture](/uploads/2/6/0/7/26072454/5518087.png?388)
The Innovators Dilemma was developed by Clayton Christensen and looks at strategic thinking and planning from the perspective of providing a product that will be utilized fully by the customers (Clawson, 2009) . Figure 5 displays the innovator dilemma and emphasizes the vertical axis as an unusual measure, the proportion of the product’s feature that customers can use (Clawson, 2009). The other axis represent s time and the hope that costumer will be able to use more and more of the products. Clawson (2009) explains that there are two dilemmas by the organization, the first is making products that are technologically too advanced and expensive called overshooting. The second dilemma is that the product or service is too common, cheap, or underdeveloped. By providing a product or service right between these two extremes the organization can be successful through strategic thinking. This model works well for any coach that is trying to revitalize a baseball program that is already established. Coaches want to be able to attract all levels of players so that you are not limited to one skill set. The Innovators Dilemma give a model for established programs faced with recruiting and attracting players. The reality is that not every player or recruit you target will be a top notch incoming athlete. Role players must be utilized and quality players from both ends of the spectrum must be used. Players should feel that play a meaningful role in your program in order to create a high level of competition. If a highly competitive environment is fostered then players will push each other to become better intern making the team better.
Strategic Frames Tools
The strategic frame tools below are graphic organizers that are should be utilized to enhance a program or organization in a coach’s strategic frame for leadership. These resources make it easier for coaches to plan for leadership implications in all areas of strategic challenges, future leadership planning, organizational charter planning, work group charter planning, and personal charter planning. The tools displayed should supplement a coaches strategic frame model in an organized manner.
Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.