How, and in how far does the current United Kingdom constitutional Essay

How, and in how far does the current United Kingdom constitutional system demonstrate the operation of the doctrine of the Separation of Powers - Essay Example With regard to the UK position, the doctrine of the separation of powers has traditionally been limited and criticised for being somewhat unclear in comparison to other democracies3. Nevertheless, it has been commented that the doctrine does in fact influence everyday operations of the executive, legislature and judiciary4 and Barnett argues that â€Å"Separation of powers†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ runs like a thread throughout the constitution of the United Kingdom5.† Nevertheless, in the UK there has not been a clear separation of the branches of the state6, but rather a fusion. For example, the executive clearly carries out legislative functions and a prime example is the Law Commission. Although the Law Commission Act 1965 clearly requires the Commission to be â€Å"independent7† in reviewing law reform, its committee members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor who also grants prior approval to projects that the Law Commission will review. Additionally, the judiciary obtain their power from the Crown and there is a distinct overlap of functions between the powers, which should be separated for the effective application of the separation of powers8. This obfuscation of the theoretical separation of powers has ramifications for the procedure of passing Acts of Parliament. Parliament is essentially the legislative section of the British political system. As such, through the executive Prime Minister and the Cabinet, Parliament sanctions executive sovereignty in a party governmental system. Theoretically Parliament is a policy influencing body, relying on the executive to formulate policy and reacts to it and therefore the party machine reinforces power of the executive to initiate policy. Parliament is not therefore involved in the policy making process and has minor powers of initiation. Whilst government controls Parliament the passing of an Act of Parliament ultimately depends on control, possession of

CSS Styles and Web Design Essay Example for Free

CSS Styles and Web Design Essay Two types of layouts, Table-based layouts and CSS-based layouts can be used to manage the formatting of a web site. Table-based layouts are easy to use and implement when compared to CSS-layouts and editors like FrontPage and Dreamweaver make it very easy for developers to include them. The main disadvantages of Table-based layouts are that tables break on various browsers thus producing layout dysfunctions and it increases almost unnecessarily the HTML/text ratio. Cascading style sheets (CSS) make it easy to manage the formatting of a web site and it can be used to control the appearance of objects on a page or throughout a site. It can be designed and redesigned, and can control the formatting of hundreds of pages, including fonts, link colors, margin settings and background images. It is widely supported by modern browsers and allows flexibility in positioning. CSS based layouts Keeps the HTMl/text ratio at a low level thus decreasing load time and Allows the display of main content first while the graphics load afterwards. CSS also avoid accessibility issues raised by table cells and the content flows logically without disruption. A div tag defines a block of content (division/section in a document) to be formatted. Div tags can be defined through an ID or a class attribute. Using CSS and div tags reduces markup code, speeds up page downloads, separates content from its visual presentation, and brings code closer to Web standards compliance. If the div tags are defined in external CSS file than by changing properties of div tags in only CSS files the appearance of multiple pages can be controlled. Reference Web Development Series: formatting content, January 4, 2007 retrieved on 11 February 2007 http://academictech. doit. wisc. edu/ORFI/wds/index. htm Mardiros, C 2006. CSS Layouts vs. Table Layouts Alternate Browsers and Accessibility Issues. Retrieved on 11 February 2007 from http://www. mardiros. net/css-layout. html .

Human Responses to the Human Split Brain :: Biology Essays Research Papers

When neuroscientists first made direct contact with the right hemisphere of the brain, during neurological tests of "split brain" human subjects, it was as if they had found intelligent, albeit speechless, life on Mars. At a time when brain imaging techniques were crude or nonexistent, the only way to observe and communicate with the brain's right hemisphere unimpeded by the left hemisphere was by testing split brain subjects (1). The right hemisphere, previously supposed mute, illiterate, mentally retarded, and completely subordinate to the left hemisphere, had a mind of its own (1). While it could not speak, it could respond to commands and questions via its contralateral control of the left hand. It had different abilities and even opinions and emotional states than the neighboring left hemisphere (2). These discoveries led to a model of hemispheric specialization of normal human brain function, with an analytic, verbal, problem solving left hemisphere and a visuospatial, syntheti c, creative right hemisphere (1, 2). The formation of this model in turn offers insight into the brains of the observers as well as the observed. The observers' behavior supported some of their own hypotheses about the human brain, split or unsplit. The term "split-brain" is commonly used to describe a person whose corpus callosum has been surgically severed (3). The corpus callosum, comprised of approximately 200 million neuronal fibers connecting the left and right hemispheres of brain, exists only in mammals' brains, and is largest in human brains (1, 3). Until the 1960's neuroscientists were unsure what purpose the corpus callosum served (3). By observing deficits in split brains' functions, scientists could better assess the corpus callosum's function (1). Roger Sperry and his colleagues pioneered the operation severing the corpus callosum, known as callosal commisurectomy, in the 1960s, as a last ditch effort to control the seizures of life threateningly severe epilepsy by creating a fire wall to prevent electrical impulses from traveling between hemispheres (1). This treatment was successful, and after recovering from the surgery, the split-brain patients appeared normal in every day interactions and even during a routine physical exam (1). However, Sperry and his colleagues, after extensive and specific neurological tests of split brain patients, posited that the corpus callosum communicated stimuli and responses between the two hemispheres, each specialized for different cognitive functions (1). Using a tachistoscope, Sperry delivered visual stimuli to a single visual field of the subject (1). He discovered that, with the exception of olfactory stimuli, the hemispheres of the brain receive sensory stimuli and exercise motor control contralaterally (1, 3, 5).

The McDonaldization

â€Å"McDonaldization† — as used by George Ritzer, author of The McDonaldization of Society — refers to the creation of â€Å"rationalized systems† to perform everyday functions such as food preparation, retail sales, banking, home construction, entertainment, news delivery and so on. He calls it McDonaldization because such methods were used to famous effect by Ray Kroc, who built McDonald's into a fast-food empire — and because in many people's minds McDonald's represents the results, both good and bad, that occur when rationalized systems take over. But has this transition affected other businesses either positively or negatively? Why sure, thanks for asking! I think the best way to examine McDonaldization is to compare the analysis of McDonalds to its effects in the same industry. The way I plan to do this is to see if the effects of McDonaldization have effect the Wendy†s franchise. The information that I know about this business comes from my brother working for this company for many years and partaking in a triple-cheeseburger or two in my short college career. The way that Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers does business and markets it's product to consumers is due to the change in our society to where the consumer wants the biggest, fastest, and best product they can get for their money. This change in society can be attributed to a process known as McDonaldization. Although McDonaldization can be applied to many other parts of our society, this paper will focus on its impact on Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers. My belief is that the process of McDonaldization, where the ideology of McDonald's has come to dominate the world, has caused Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers to emulate McDonald's style of running a franchised restaurant chain in terms of efficiency, calculability, and control. However, since McDonald's has become the embodiment of â€Å"fast-food† in our society, Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers has had to change their focus to giving the consumer a higher quality product in a relatively fast amount of time. So, Wendy's still caters to a McDonaldized society in terms of giving them a meal as fast as possible but making quality their number one priority to give people a viable option from McDonald's. In addition, as mentioned before, I have used my brother who managed to keep a job at Wendy's for a short period and observations I gathered while at McDonald's as further information for this paper. First, before I discuss the impact of McDonaldization on Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers, I will define what McDonaldization is. McDonaldization is the process by which the principles of fast-food restaurants are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society, as well as, of the rest of the world. George Ritzer created this concept of McDonaldization as a continuation of Max Weber's theories on bureaucracies (I hope). Max Weber defines a bureaucracy as a large hierarchical organization that is governed by formal rules and regulations and has a clear specification of work tasks. Its three main characteristics are that it has a division of labor, hierarchy of authority, and an impartial and impersonal application of rules and policies (see what I got from Sociological Theory). Thus, from that definition of a bureaucracy, one would conclude that both McDonald's and Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers are bureaucracies. The fact that both restaurants are bureaucracies is supported by the fact that each assigns workers to a specific job where each worker individually contributes to the overall success of the restaurant by doing his or her job. For example, workers at each restaurant could be assigned to working the grill, making fries, working the front register, or taking orders at the drive-thru window. Both restaurants have a hierarchy of authority from worker, crew chief, shift manager, salary manager to owner of the store. Also, each restaurant enforces an impartial and impersonal application of rules and policies. Both McDonald's and Wendy's have standard, impersonal greetings at the register and at the drive-thru window. The exception when this impersonal attitude towards the customer is changed is when a worker knows the customer outside the restaurant. In this case, the worker will probably ask their acquaintance how they are doing or what they are up to. The worker might even throw in an extra cheeseburger that a regular customer might not get. Despite this exception where standardization is broken, both these restaurants have become bureaucracies because they are the most efficient means of managing large groups of people. That leaves one to wonder why the process of McDonaldization has been so successful for both companies. The first reason is that it offers efficiency where consumers know that it means the quickest way to get from one point to another. In the case of McDonald's, it offers the best available way to get from being hungry to being full. This is so important in today's society because so many people are in a rush to get from one place to another. Therefore, the quick, efficient setup of McDonald's allows consumers to eat a fast-food meal without having to leave their car. On the other hand, Wendy's strives for as efficient service as possible without affecting the quality of their product. This is because McDonald's already has imprinted on people's minds throughout the many years of its existence that they will get the same burger each visit in the quickest amount of time. They reinforce this idea on the minds of consumers through advertising and other clever tools. For example, on every McDonald's sign is a tally of how many people in the world have eaten there, which is currently at 99 billion served. The use of this sign reinforces to people that McDonald's is an icon in our society and many people will equate that large number with McDonald's being the best restaurant. As a result, Wendy's has tried to make quality their number one priority but with no serious deficiencies in the speed of their product. This can be attributed to the fact that they do not pre-make their burgers and leave them under heat lamps to sit like McDonald's does. Instead, they have their staff assembled to make the burger as the customer orders it. This is an especially important benefit because many people like to â€Å"customize† their burger and the process that Wendy's uses allow them to do that. This allows them to target another group of society, which McDonald's product doesn't appeal to. For example, older people who would rather sit down and have a quality meal would most likely rather go to Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers. Even, the name of Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers suggests that their style is more like how things used to be done many decades ago in terms of making quality the number one priority for a restaurant. Therefore, they would provide an alternative for people who were not interested in getting a burger that has been slopped together and sitting under a heat lamp for an hour. This would be reflected in which demographic of people each restaurant targeted. McDonald's traditionally has targeted families as their key demographic but recently they have shifted to make their product more appealing to teenagers as well. This can best be demonstrated in their new style commercials that use many young adults and refers to McDonald's as â€Å"Mickey D's† as a hip place to hang out. So, for young people who are in a rush to get from place to place, McDonald's provides a fast, cheap meal that they can eat on the run. On the other hand, Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers targets people who aren't in such a rush and would rather sit down and eat a slow, relaxing meal (is this ageism). They still cater to those who are in a rush by offering a drive-thru. However, they know that most of their business will come from people looking for a quality alternative to McDonald's. Another aspect of McDonaldization that has made both companies successful is calculability. This is where each restaurant puts an emphasis on quantitative aspects of products sold like portion size and cost. For example, McDonald's has burgers like the â€Å"Quarter Pounder† and â€Å"Big Mac† while Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburger has burgers like the â€Å"Double Bacon Cheeseburger†. This use of descriptive adjectives suggests to the consumer that they are getting the most amount of food for their money. Both McDonald's and Wendy's have the option to â€Å"Supersize† or â€Å"Biggiesize† an order. This makes the companies successful in our society because of our belief that bigger is better. Finally, both companies use control, especially through the substitution of non-human for human technology. For both companies that means using soft drink machines that automatically shuts off when the glass is full, french-fry machines that rings and lifts itself out of the oil when the fries are done, and the preprogrammed cash registers that eliminate the need for the cashier to calculate any prices. The main reason that this is done is because,† [people are] The great source of uncertainty, unpredictability and inefficiency in any rationalizing system. Thus, by increasing control, through increased mechanization, both companies maintain a better control over the entire organization. Also, this leads to employees not having to think about their job because the tasks they are asked to do are very repetitive. In conclusion, it is obvious that both restaurants have adopted a style of running their restaurants that makes them successful. McDonald's style is to give the public the same burger that they have always had so that they can come to depend that they will get the same meal as they did last time. They have been a pioneer in the fast-food industry and the model that other restaurants try to imitate. On the other hand, Wendy's style is to make a quality product that reminds people of the â€Å"good old days†. They have been directly influenced by McDonald's in terms of how to run their fast-food restaurant to maximize speed and efficiency. However, since Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers would not have a chance of competing with McDonald's at their own game, they have developed their own niche in the market of making a quality product efficiently. What concerns me is the way these companies are phasing out the roles of their employees to the point where they are doing nothing but mindless, repetitive tasks. To me, the consequence of this will be that someday all human workers will be replaced because it is more efficient for machines to do the work. So, although McDonaldization has made both these companies very successful, there is a very serious potential downside that could have an effect on everyone. Now there is no doubt that this text can be read on a number of different levels, some of which are far more satisfactory than others. Ritzer is clearly an accessible and engaging writer. For an undergraduate audience, which is unfamiliar with the language, and indeed, critical project of radical social theory, this text provides a worthy, and indeed somewhat enjoyable introduction. Keep in mind, though, that those four principles are not necessarily pursued from the point of view of the consumer. Efficiency, for example, may entail the placing of great inconveniences upon a consumer for the sake of efficient management. Calculability may involve hiding certain information from the consumer. Predictability and control may involve a company's ability to predict and control consumer behavior, not the consumer's ability to predict what kind of product or control what kind of service he gets. Ritzer calls such breakdowns â€Å"the irrationality of rationalization. † Even so, there is a great perception among American consumers in particular that McDonaldized systems succeed from their own point of view based on those criteria: the systems are perceived to be more efficient, the benefits calculable, the goods and services predictable. But it's rare that the consumer will ever feel himself to be more in control. McDonaldized systems take away a great deal of consumer autonomy (which I love), making decisions and implementing processes on a mass-market scale with little room for individual involvement on the part of a single customer or even a single store or plant manager. The benefit of control is one that accrues exclusively to the company. Regardless of who benefits or to what extent, the universal result is homogenization. Rationalized systems have a pronounced tendency to squash-individual tastes, niche markets, small-scale enterprise and personalized customer service. Differences are leveled, wrinkles smoothed, knots cut off — convenience at the expense of character. An overwhelming normlessness develops, along with a decrease in responsiveness among the people of our society that are involved. The system that seeks to mimic a machine becomes a machine, incapable of making exceptions or taking risks. McDonaldization is taking over our society. In the future, our wishes of fast, more efficient services will be fulfilled; but whom in the world will we ever talk too?

Tale of Two Coaches

Running Head: Tale of Two Coaches and Leadership Tale of Two Coaches and Leadership Randal J. Reutzel Grand Canyon University: LDR – 600 October 27, 2011 Abstract Coaching and leadership seem to be synonymous with each other, in that if you’re a high caliber coach you must be a great leader, how else would you have achieved your success. While coaching in the NCAA division 1 basketball the goal is to win national championships, while also being a mentor to your students. Bobby Knight is a great basketball legend at Indiana, with a past of outrageous unacceptable behavior to the fans and to players, while also having one of the best collegiate records of all time. Coach Krzyzewski was also a great coach, was mentored by coach Knight and went on to be a legend at Duke. Coach K’s style of coaching was less dramatic and more heartfelt in his approach. Coach K’s was concerned for his player’s feelings and his style of motivating his players centered on less dramatizations on and off the court. Both Coaches were successful; one got into the heads of its players through coercive intimidation to be the best, the other through caring, talking and high levels of trust. Which coach is best depends on whom you ask and what perspective of coaching leadership style you prefer, or it could be a generational time difference or simply opposite styles that worked and produced results. Tale of Two Coaches and Leadership Leaders through time have on many occasions aligned their leadership styles to the great coaches either in the NFL or NBA. Does being a great coach and the techniques used by coaches translate into what leaders or managers should be leading employees by? Two great coaches with NCAA basketball championships, one mentored by the other, can have very different approaches and still get the results needed, winning seasons along with students who went on to great careers and have great respect for their mentors and coaches. Coach Bobby Knight led his teams through his relationship from a base of power. In the article from ESPN by Mike Puma, Knight was known for his tirades against players, referees and reporters as well as his brilliance to win games. Knight led his teams with complete control and nobody was second guessing his decisions, if they did it was with great conflict. He may have wanted to resolve the conflict but it was going to be on his terms. Knight led his teams with complete control from his position as the head of the team. He demanded certain expectations and rewarded this with play time or with sharp reprimands and punishment. His style was that of a managerial role, he demanded respect in that he held the position of power and he alone would be the master of activities and routines and this would influence players and the ultimate outcome. Northouse, 2010) Coach Knight led his teams with a history of demanding on others what he could not accomplish as a player. He developed a pattern of coercion that was demonstrated even off the court, by assaulting police during the Pan Am games or throwing chairs across courts. (Northouse, 2010) Coach Krzyzewski or â€Å"K† led his teams through his relations from a b ase of personal power, with no mistake he was the head coach. Coach K was mentored as a player and assistant coach for the military under Coach Bob Knight. Although Coach K went into the military, he was not of military mind, and this may have latter influenced his leadership traits. He dreamed of being a teacher not a military officer. (Bob Carter) What he learned from Knight was it took an unbelievable passion to be a leader, not Knights antics that put him into trouble more often than not. Coach K lead his teams and to championships through his role as a leader by inspiring and energizing the team, taking ownership in their actions. Grant Hill said coach K had a way of making people totally vested in the decision-making process, and that is what made him a great leader. Bob Carter) Traits of Coaching and Leadership Both coaches had specific traits that lead them to success, although one coach’s traits also lead to his demise while the other coach realized the passion needed and channeled his leadership spirit into more socially acceptable patterns. Coach Knight and Coach K were both intelligent and knew the intellectual struct ure of creating and leading great basketball teams. They demonstrated the ability to get talent and use that talent in different ways against different teams to win games and championships. Early in both coaches careers they knew what they wanted and what careers they wanted to pursue. To get to their end means of coaching they played the sport, learned from others and when through college level training. All of the training, and along the way making mistakes, they gained the confidence within themselves and gained self-esteem and self-assurance that they could make a difference. Coach Knight was given the opportunity through the army as a coach to demonstrate his style of leadership was the correct one. Coach K through the army was given the education, with his passion of basketball and mentoring from Coach Knight gained the self confidence to become what he wanted to be, a teacher and a coach. Determination for both coaches was that they wanted to be winners, leaders, and be a part of something great. Early in Coach Knight’s career even he stated that he only offered indentured servitude and unlimited practice. Early in Coach K’s career he was not an outstanding coach; others did believe in him and he gained self confidence with good players at Duke. Coach K again is quoted he learned from Knight the passion and amount of preparation it takes to be successful. (Bob Carter) Integrity is the ability of a leader to live and lead with some principles and take responsibility for their actions. The ability to possess integrity should build confidence in your team. Integrity is probably where the two coaches will separate their styles of leadership. Coach Knight through the years did several things to damage that integrity, through his actions in Panama or ways he degraded assistant coaches or lecturing teams with the use of props of soiled toilet paper. There were many times where his actions did not represent the role which he was given and he made little effort to change unless he was forced. Coach K built much of what he was on his integrity; he stuck up for his players many times. Once his team was graded by the student paper, it was the fact that the paper portrayed the players as instruments of entertainment and ego indulgence; this infuriated the coach, which he later apologized. What Coach K stood for was a caring, communication and trust within the team, and that was what he wanted for the whole student body, and why his fan base was so strong. The last important trait style of leadership is the ability for a leader to seek out good pleasant social relationships. The leader should be thought of as friendly, outgoing, courteous, tactful and diplomatic. Coach Knight, I believe, started out his career with these traits as he had to, through time, over confidence and ego caused him to lose most of these traits. People would say if you only know him like I do, but it was reported that he was known to be rude, defiant and hostile. (Bob Carter) Coach K on the other hand was exponentially known for his trait as having social leadership skills. He said you have to feel what your players feel in order to be a leader. A former player and now a coach Quin Snyder said that you give up ego to be a part of something special. (Bob Carter) Ego can and will get in the way of great social ability to lead a team and be a part of a team. Coach K has been and will be remember for his greatness, he possessed the most complete set of the 5 trait characteristics of a leader and it made him more accomplished and respected. Coach Knight lacked in the traits and his ego, temper, integrity came back to haunt him. He may be remembered more for his antics on and off the court than his record wins or development of players. The Three Skills of Coaching Success The three skills that are needed for success as a leader according to our reading from Robert Katz and Michael D. Mumford are Technical, Human and Conceptual. Through the levels of management different emphasis is required from each to be a great leader. In the situation of the coaches, they needed to possess top management skills where human and conceptual skills place more important than the technical aspects of the game of basketball. In the readings, both coaches knew the technical aspects of the game and surrounded themselves with knowledgeable assistances. Coach K’s emphasis was the human and conceptual aspects of his team and his responsibility to the school and its students. His kids needed to feel a part of something great and bigger than themselves and togetherness, this was demonstrated when coach K handed team phone numbers out and encouraged freshman to use them. (Mike Puma) Coach Knight demonstrated skills for the technical and conceptual skills; he had an ability to always figure out the best approach to win games against many different teams. Coach Knight is on record for being the youngest coach ever to win 600 games. He struggled with the ability to work with people that did not match his style or demands of doing exactly everything his way. He continually abused players and assistant coaches, while also getting in trouble in foreign countries. Leadership Grid Comparison The leadership grid from chapter 4, developed by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton, is basically a grid of different leadership styles with the two axis x – horizontal measure is based for results and y- vertical is based on concern for people. I believe from the reading that coach K and Knight developed strong leadership styles based on one premise for winning, or results. What they did was go about teaching and leading the teams differently to attain those results. Coach K moved his leadership style around as he needed to according to the needs of players or the team. Based on his style he concentrated his style in the middle of the road, trying to balance the need to get work done and the team needs, but he strongly styled his effort in the direction of team management by surrounding his team with committed members and built relationships of trust and respect. Coach Knight directed his leadership style more as an authority-compliance manager. He expected things to be done his way, and everyone around him to carter to his needs, whether that was good for personal development or not. The win, and only the win, was what needed to happen and he stepped and plowed through anyone and by any controversial tirade he had to get there. He even said in an interview that if you’re being raped to lay back and enjoy it. I believe this was his way of saying to the interviewer about his tantrums – which everyone just needed to put up with him. When he goes wild he wants to not be held responsible for his actions and for everyone to shut up. (Mike Puma) Contingency Model for Coaches The question presented: were both coaches matched to their situation based on the model developed by Fred Edward Fiedler described as the contingency mode? I think the answer is both yes and no. The styles of leadership in this model are described as being a task motivated or relationship motivated leadership. From the reading both coaches were winning coaches, they both used different approaches to get the results. In this model Coach K was high on leader-member, but with strong tasks, and did this without enforcing his positional power. Coach K did well with this leadership style at Duke University. Coach Knight was more task structured, the requirements were clear and spelled out and Knight controlled everything around him. When things got out of his control, people and team mates suffered and things did not go well for the coach. This goes against the model in some aspects in that if you’re out of control the task relationship should work out better for this type of leader, but there are flaws in the model. This works well for someone with specific tasks like fixing a part or cleaning a sink. In the situation of coach Knight it was more ambiguous in the tasks that needed to be accomplished. He could not deal with ambiguity and his temper showed as he took it out on other people and team members. (Northouse, 2010) Situational Leadership II The two coaches showed evidence from both readings that they practiced some level of situational leadership. Coach K demonstrated that he stood up for his players and they knew they could trust him. When he gave the ball to Laettner to stuff a basket in the final seconds to win a championship he knew he had the skills and would get the job done. He wanted to win for the team not for himself and even said once, did you see their faces and how happy they are. (Bob Carter) Coach K led his team by the skills that the team had; he did not change them, he developed them. Coach Knight, I believe, also led teams by development and using skills in the appropriate areas. He did it in a fashion of sheer work and drive to hone the skill in each person to exactly the perfection he wanted. When he did not get it or thought they were not giving enough, there were consequences for all around. Coach Knight was low on the supportive and directive behavior quadrant; I do not think he felt comfortable or confident to manage from that perspective. (Northouse, 2010) He excelled from the more comfortable leadership position S2 with only fringes of S1 or S3, unless they were extremely successful. Path-Goal Theory The path-goal theory of leadership is by understanding and leading people through enhancing performance and satisfaction and then focusing on what motivates them. For both coaches and for the entire player, the goal was to win games and that is what everyone wants. Both coaches had to go out and get potential players and those player and coaches began a dialogue on what both wanted and how they were going to achieve it. I believe that players that were coached by Knight knew his style and methods that he used to win games. Even today people say you don’t know him like we do, meaning his methods to them were acceptable. Likewise, Coach K went out to get players and they knew what he was like and his methods. The players chose to go with the perspective school and accepted them based on learned knowledge. Both coaches led their players in a fashion that was in an achievement-oriented style to reach their highest potential for the best outcome – winning games. The players with the desire of external locus of control probably liked Coach K style of leadership. The external locus of control the subordinate likes to feel more in control of their destiny and maybe take part in the decisions; this would be a part of something special with players and Coach K. Coach Knight was a dominate leader and coach, in control of everything – external locus of control players would believe more outside forces are in control. Directive leadership would be best for these types of players as they like the idea of someone taking control. Both teams coached by either Knight or Krzyzewski demonstrated the task characteristics as both coaches and players needed to be able to perform on the floor during a game with independence as things happen fast. Both coaches needed their teams to function on their own with a high degree of confidence. They would use the skills taught to them to win the game. References Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications Bob Carter, Krzyzewskiville, ESPN Classic. From: http://www. espn. go. com/classic/biography/s/Krzyzewski_Mike. html Mike Puma, Knight Known for titles, temper, ESPN Classic. From: http://espn. go. com/classic/biography/s/Knight_Bob. html