Be the change...
1.) What do you currently think are key strategies to effectively leading change or a sport organization turnaround?
I think that communication and modeling are the two most effective ways to lead change and lead a sport organization turnaround. In prior chapters, we discuss the importance of communication as it is necessary to convey an organization’s goals, culture, vision, etc. When leading change, the strategy for organizational communication needs to focus on different priorities as a means to be both proactive and inclusive. Any period of change often causes discomfort for those who are effected. By communicating the process and reasoning behind said change, most leaders are able to soften the blow because followers have a reasonable idea of what to expect. The worst thing for followers is to be surprised and reeling in confusion.
In the case of a sport turnaround, communication is equally as important. It is difficult to motivate a team if they don’t know what is expected of them. A turnaround often times upsets the expectations placed upon members of a team and these members need to know what is expected of them so that they can evaluate the quality of their work against new standards. For sport teams, this may mean a new coach comes in to implement a new system of play. A general manager may have a different philosophy when it comes to veteran leadership on a team. These things all require leaders to convey their intention and reasoning so that they can achieve “buy in”. “Buy in” refers to a person’s willingness to support a process or change through reasoning.
The second key strategy, modeling, used to effectively lead change is just as important as communication. I would say that these two strategies can be summed up by one quote, “If you’re going to talk the talk, than walk the walk.” It is one thing to say all the right things, it is another to model the behavior that supports your claims. In sports, this is even more important because athletics requires careful attention to the body. A coach may emphasize proper nutrition, but they may not be taken seriously if they are crushing candy bars at every team meeting. A general manager may say that an organization is going to turnaround in the upcoming season and focus on bringing in new talent, but stakeholders may not buy in if the GM keeps the same team they’ve had for years without any changes. This may be one of the more difficult things to execute as a leader because it requires 24/7 attention.
2.) What do you believe are the most appropriate leadership styles for leading a turnaround? Does this depend on the situation? Why or why not?
I believe that the most appropriate leadership styles for leading a turnaround are democratic, affiliative, and pacesetting. These three styles focus on inclusivity, harmony, and standards of performance. In the response above, I detailed the importance of communication as a key element when instituting organizational change. When done well, communication increases inclusivity and brings in all members of the organization during the change process. Also referred to in the first response, change can be an uncomfortable time for those who are affected. By creating a harmonious method for implementation, the message of change carries an underlying positivity that is meant to encourage members to welcome the change as opposed to reject it. Pacesetting, may be the easiest, yet most effective, style for leading a turnaround. People don’t always care about the change as a whole, but instead care about how it effects them in their work. By pacesetting, leadership establishes the standards for which work will be measured in response to a change. People often execute their work with a higher degree of proficiency if they know what is expected from them.
Realistically, leadership styles do depend upon the situation. This is because people respond better to different leadership styles based on their personality. Often times, organizations attract likeminded individuals who tend to share personality traits and characteristics. Let’s take the armed forces for example, it may not be effective to utilize a democratic leadership style because these members do not know how to respond to that style. Instead, they would most likely respond best to an authoritarian leadership style where they are required to change. This style still demonstrates competencies of both self-confidence and empathy.
3.) How prepared do you currently feel if you were to be placed in a role of crisis leadership? What do you see as your strengths and weaknesses relative to knowledge, skills, and behaviors in a crisis situation?
I feel adequately prepared if I was to be placed in a role of crisis leadership. I have experienced crisis in both my personal and organizational experiences. My greatest strength is my patience and cool demeanor. I don’t typically make knee jerk decisions and try to acquire enough information before coming to a decision. This helps during times of crisis because decisions need to be calculated in a timely manner. Not only does this slow things down, it also puts perspective on the issue as a whole. My calm and collected demeanor is also a strength as it conveys a message of control. It is important for a leader to maintain control of him or herself during a time of panic because followers look to you for guidance. If you panic, everyone else will likely become uneasy as a response. If we maintain a collected demeanor, we communicate discipline and assurance to our followers.
4.) What processes and recommendations are you familiar with for leading people and organizations through a crisis?
Conference and listen. I’m familiar with these two elements when leading through crisis. It is important to listen to all of the feedback that comes your way. You don’t have to act on all of it, but it is important to listen. Conferencing with trusted colleagues allows us to absorb the impact of the crisis and come up with a way to strategically respond. During conference, all members are afforded the opportunity to share their thoughts and perspective on the matter and then provide solutions. Times of crisis often times bring people closer together when responded to in an effective way. Including others in the process allows them to help you as a leader and also gives you additional information that you can use when coming to a decision.
Three things:
1.) Psychological Turnaround: This interests me because it is one thing to communicate change and model the proper behavior. It is another when you try to instill a psychological turnaround. People typically feel pretty cemented in their thoughts about an organization or a process being utilized. It is so hard to re-wire the brain so that people can absorb the environment around them in a new way. Someone may have a terrible experience with a youth sport organization and that can scar them. The organization can make all the right changes of the next five years and still fail to convince that same person merely because they have decided, in their mind, that this organization is bad. Psychological turnaround is no easy feat. I am trying to experience a psychological turnaround in my assistantship right now. I have been here for a couple of months and have been so let down by the experience thus far. I need to change my attitude and find ways to be effective since I spend a good portion of my week working at the assistantship. This is proving difficult because I have already made up my mind that this assistantship is proving wasteful of my time and affords me little opportunity to further my career in youth sports. Instead, there is an opportunity to integrate into the community and network with the community we serve. I will continue to work towards a better psychological approach to my current situation and try to lead upward instead of waiting for direction.
2.) Crisis Leadership: This topic interests me because it exposes leader’s true personality. Crisis is not an everyday experience, this means that leaders are typically leading during times of control. When crisis hits, some leaders cannot respond in an appropriate manner and their true personality is put on display. This is not always a bad thing, but exposes a separation between what a leader says and what they really do. On the contrary, this is a great opportunity for leaders to put their true colors on display. A leader can really thrive during crisis and motivate followers to support them if they perform admirably. This fascinates me because there is such a high upside and a low downside during crisis for leaders. I’ve experienced crisis before as a youth sport director and I can tell you, first hand, that everyone is watching your reaction when crisis hits. Whether they comment on it or not, everyone takes notice of how you respond to the situation and the manner in which you do so.
3.) Crisis management vs. crisis leadership: This interests me because I can certainly see the difference between management and leadership during a time of crisis. You can follow a process and manage a crisis situation fairly well. However, the actually leadership component is powerful during crisis because it speaks to the humanity of those who are affected. Leading is the humanistic approach to managing people’s emotions and expectations. Both management and leadership are necessary during crisis and have different outcomes as a result. Management will yield an outcome and is more concerned with reaching a goal. Leadership will help shape the experience and is more concerned with how we get to the goal. During crisis we need to make sure we reach the goal and do so in both an inclusive and effective manner.
