Theories in Action- Connor Roswech

One of the leadership theories we discussed in Dr. Forsyth’s class that I have found particularly relevant is Fiedler’s Contingency Theory. This approach to leadership states that the leader will adapt his or her approach to the needs of their followers and the demands of the situation. The leader does not try to force his or her will, or attempt to mold the circumstances to fit their desired outlook. Instead, the leader is committed to being dynamic, flexible, and attentive to the many factors that influence their decision making process. Fiedler categorized followers into different levels of readiness, which he based upon their willingness and their competence. Each level of readiness required a different type of leadership style. In our program, I noticed that our players have both a high level of willingness, and a high level of competence. With many returning fifth year and sixth year players, they are here because they very much want to be here, and want to win an A10 championship. They are timely, dedicated, hardworking, and don’t need much motivation from the coaching staff to come in the gym and get extra workouts in. Since they are so experienced, our players also have great knowledge of and familiarity with our offensive and defensive sets. Many of our older athletes have become on court extensions of the coaching staff, using their experience and expertise to assist the development of younger players. In many cases, the staff has taken a bit of a backseat and given the older players a lot more independence, both on and off the court. The leadership style the coaches have exhibited here, according to Hershey and Blanchard’s Theory of Situational Leadership, is best known as R1, or “Delegating.” This style matches the readiness of followers who are both high in competency and willingness. However, this laid back style was not always the case, especially when I was a freshman. The team was much younger three years ago, and it was still high in willingness, but much lower in competency. Players were still passionate, coachable, and confident, but they lacked the experience and skill needed to succeed at the Division 1 level. They needed much more coaching, and practices were conducted at a much slower pace to allow for more teaching moments.