Coach K

1)

Both coach Knight and coach K followed a surprisingly simple and unregimented approach to coaching, that is, don’t do anything detrimental. They all devoted themselves to the coach career and did everything they believed good for their teams. However, they were totally different types of leadership. First of all, coach Knight pushed his players very hard to motivate their will to win, but coach K tried to understand what’s in his players’ heads and communicated to help them to do better. As a result, K used different toolkit form Knight did. Moreover, coach K maintained a very positive environment in the court and got along well with his players off the court, but Knight’ players, although they knew they was in the hands of a truly great coach, couldn’t understand him and some of his former players spoke openly about verbal and physical abuse.

2)

Coach K treated his players as family members. He preferred to communicate and lead them in very positive ways. He taught discipline by investing heavily in drills and skills with his players, practicing set plays and exhaustively analyzing practices, game films, and strategies. Although stern and unyielding during a game, he considered and helped players get to where they all need to be as a team. Coach K rarely used a whistle to make too much distance between him and his players. Instead, he asked all members of their team to look each other in the eye when speaking to one another. His basic assumptions about motivation, leading and human nature are that positive styles can encourage players most and motivate them to act and cooperate better.

3)

Coach Knight’s communication and leadership styles are passionate and demanding. He created a serious and high-stress environment for his players and pushed them very hard. He demanded discipline on the court every day and did not play favorites. Filled with meticulously planned and flawlessly executed drills, Knight had motivational toolkit included push-ups, wind sprints, and insulting verbal barbs. His basic assumptions about motivation, leading and human nature are that a passionate tyrant is necessary when he is helping players become the best they can be.

4)

In my opinion, coach K is definitely more effective. He could motivate his players to make progress along the way he wanted and lead them to win. That’s what a successful coach should do. More importantly, K got along well with his players and gained their trust both on the court and off the court. This kind of positive relationships can create a sense of belonging for everyone and make them act better. I will hire coach K in most cases because his styles can build a team which is great and keeping moving. But if I need a team which can be trained to compete with others in a very short time, I will hire Knight, because his passionate styles are suitable for a crash course.