Running head: STRATEGY-TO-PERFORMANCE GAP ANALYSIS

A Leadership Strategy-to-Performance Gap Analysis of the Southwestern College Football Team

Dion Meneley
LEAD 500/ Southwestern College
Dr. Ronald Beach
August 11, 2010

STRATEGY-TO-PERFORMANCE GAP ANALYSIS

Abstract
A leadership strategy-to-gap analysis was performed on the Southwestern Football team
in an effort to identify if the goals, objectives, and vision of the program were being effectively
communicated to the players by the coaching staff. In addition, the organizational structure of
the team, both on and off the field, was investigated to identify which areas were performing at
high levels, and which were not performing up to expectations. The various leadership styles
utilized by the members of the coaching staff required additional attention as to whether the
intended messages were being received by the various position groups on the team. After
deciphering the messages that were being sent to each position group, the on and off the field
performance was measured by wins and losses, retention rates, and positive comments about the
coaching staff. The coaching staff that is currently leading the football program arrived in the
spring of 2007; and therefore, this analysis will be directed at the years following their arrival,
and focus on the 2009 academic year.

STRATEGY-TO-PERFORMANCE GAP ANALYSIS

Table of Contents
Introduction4
Organizational Structure.5
On Field Structure..5
Off Field Structure.5
Leadership Styles of Coaching Staff.6
Offensive Staff..7
Defensive Staff..9
Strategy/ Performance Measures...11
On Field.11
Off Field12
Recommendations.13
Conclusion.14
References.15

STRATEGY-TO-PERFORMANCE GAP ANALYSIS

Introduction
The past three years have been a time of transition for the Southwestern College football
team. Ken Crandall was named the head football coach in December of 2006, and in the months
following hired a completely new coaching staff, with the exception of one assistant who he
decided to retain to keep the program running. In addition to the change in leadership, was a
massive exit of players during the winter break which resulted in a team of 39 players, 16 of
which would be seniors the following season. This unique circumstance provided the new staff
with the opportunity to instill a new sense of discipline, and build the program from the ground
up. The first objective, for the three man staff, was to recruit and sign 30 student athletes so they
could field a team for the upcoming fall, while training the existing players to be proud and
accountable members of the new Moundbuilder football team. Changing the culture in a
program that had been decimated by failure and fighting from within was a difficult battle that
had to be fought if the program was to move forward. In addition to recruiting the right student
athletes, Ken had to find 7-10 new coaches to add to the staff, which he did by the end of the
spring semester. During the following 3 years, the team began to grow in numbers and character;
however, wins on the field were very difficult to come by as a result of being such a young team.
As the team enters its fourth season, it is time to evaluate whether the strategies that have been
implemented are resulting in the desired level of performance on the field, and in the classroom.
This analysis will focus on the Southwestern College football teams organizational structure,
leadership styles being utilized by the coaching staff, and the effectiveness of the strategies being
implemented.

STRATEGY-TO-PERFORMANCE GAP ANALYSIS

Organizational Structure
On Field
The on field organizational structure of the football team at Southwestern consists of each
player being assigned to play one position, and at least one coach being assigned to that group of
players. In addition to the position coaches, there is an offensive coordinator and defensive
coordinator who are responsible for all of the players and coaches on their side of the ball. The
person responsible for the performance of the entire team is the head coach, Ken Crandall. Kens
job as the head coach is to manage every aspect of the team, just as a department manager must
do. In order to be the most successful, he must surround himself with the best possible assistant
coaches he can hire; and therefore, delegate a number of on the field responsibilities. For
example, Ken has delegated the running aspect of the game to his assistants, Jimmie Tagg and
Joe Pirillo, while maintaining control over the passing game. In addition, Ken has given control
of the defense to me. The defensive side of the ball has been modeled after the offensive side of
the ball; and therefore, has a run game coordinator and passing game coordinator. The leadership
styles of each coach will be described as this analysis continues.
Off Field
In addition to teaching the players the game of football, the coaching staff has an entirely
different set of responsibilities when it comes to off the field issues. When parents send their
sons to Southwestern College to play football, they are giving control over their childs
upbringing to the coaching staff. The job of the staff is to help the young men graduate from
college and become successful members of society. As the players mature from 17-18 year old
kids to 21-23 year old young men, there are many obstacles that the players must overcome.

STRATEGY-TO-PERFORMANCE GAP ANALYSIS

Coach Crandall has organized his staff in a manner that allows us to be the most efficient as we
help the kids get through their college years. Ken is responsible for maintaining all aspects of
the program that relate to financing the program, tracking the players eligibility, helping the
players through changes in their financial circumstances, advising players on changes in their
choice of major, and general counseling responsibilities as they present themselves. My
responsibilities include organizing and monitoring study hall, assisting with the strength and
conditioning program, and other responsibilities as they present themselves. Coach Tagg is
responsible for running our strength and conditioning program, equipment orders, and
distribution and monitoring work study hours. The other coaches on the staff are called on to
assist in every aspect of the program when needed.
Leadership Styles of Coaching Staff
There are a total of 12 coaches that are members of the Southwestern College coaching
staff; however, not each member of the staff has an equal role in the organization. In an effort to
keep within the parameters of this strategy-performance gap analysis, this section of the
breakdown will focus on the seven coaches that have a direct influence on the performance of the
players, because it is the responsibility of the coach to take responsibility for the behaviors that
are being reinforced, punished, or ignored in our organization (Barker, 2003). Each coach on our
staff utilizes a different leadership style, or a blend of styles. In this section, each coachs
leadership style, or styles, will be identified and related to the performance of the players they
are responsible for.

STRATEGY-TO-PERFORMANCE GAP ANALYSIS

Offensive Staff
The offensive staff consists of four primary coaches: Ken Crandall, Jimmie Tagg, Joe
Pirillo, and Joe Pirillo. Coach Crandall, who is responsible for every aspect of our program,
utilizes a blend of the autocratic and democratic leadership styles when dealing with members of
the football program at Southwestern. When he is dealing with members of his staff, his
leadership style depends on the level amount of confidence he has in each individuals abilities
as a coach. For example, I am allowed to have free reign when dealing with my defense. As a
result of my experience and the relationship we have forged over the past three years, Ken does
not hesitate to ask my opinion on important matters, and encourages me to look outside of the
organization to find new and innovative ways of doing things. With members of his offensive
staff; however, Ken is more of a dictator. His intent is to make sure that everyone is doing things
the way he wants them done, and as a result, tends to choke out new and creative ways of
executing the offense. Unfortunately, this lack of creativity has led to a lack of confidence on the
offensive staff and hindered improvement on that side of the ball. When he is dealing with
players, Kens leadership style is very autocratic. He does not encourage input from his players
and seldom gives a solid reasoning as to why things are being changed or implemented. As a
result, the players tend to feel disconnected and not involved in the progression of the program.
Coach Tagg, who is the only remaining coach from the previous staff, is continuously evolving
as a leader; and therefore, tends to find himself in-between leadership styles. During the first
two years, Jimmie was a yeller and screamer because he did not have very much experience in a
leadership position. As a result of his inexperience, he modeled the leadership styles he had
experienced during his playing and coaching career, which was autocratic in nature. The effect
of this type of leadership on his players was negative. The players would complain about not

STRATEGY-TO-PERFORMANCE GAP ANALYSIS

knowing why they were losing playing time, and a lack of communication between them and
their position coach. During the past year, Jimmie has begun soliciting his players opinions and
giving sound reason for corrections that need to be made. He has also started getting to know his
players better, which has allowed him to utilize a more positive leadership style that is based on
the culture each player has come from. When you receive feedback as a child it tends to be
negative, as you are usually doing something wrong. Many people carry these feelings into
adulthood and see feedback as a put-down that can be shameful. (Redford, 2006, p. 6) Jimmies
recognition of this fact of leadership has helped him transform his style of leadership, and the
result has been an increased level of play and overall satisfaction among the players.
Joe Pirillo joined the Southwestern staff during the spring of 2009. Joes leadership style
was modeled after his head coach in college, Ken Crandall; and therefore, began as an autocratic
style of leadership. During this past year, I have spent a tremendous amount of time with Joe
emphasizing the importance of letting the players know how important they are to the success of
our program. As a result of his willingness to learn, Joe has become an innovative offensive line
coach who is constantly searching for ways to motivate his players. Motivation is defined as the
forces within a person that affect the direction, intensity, and persistence of voluntary behavior
(McShane & Von Glinow, 2009). Joes attention to motivational techniques has fostered a
renewed enthusiasm on the offensive line, which has increased their level of performance, and
has spread to other members of the team.
As a whole, the offensive staff at Southwestern College has been a work in progress.
During our first two seasons, many players did not feel as if they were valued members of the
program; and therefore, struggled to perform on the football field. Clear reasoning as to why
they were being asked to do what was being required of them, and how it fit into the overall

STRATEGY-TO-PERFORMANCE GAP ANALYSIS

vision of the program was unclear. As a result of the lack of involvement, players execution
during practice and games was inconsistent and uninspired. During the 2009 season; however, I
saw glimpses of increased enthusiasm and involvement on the offensive side of the ball.
Defensive Staff
As the leader of the defensive side of the ball, it is my responsibility to get the most out
of my coaches and players. During my career, I have been very fortunate to work for people
who believe in gathering as much information as possible, sharing information, connecting with
each member of the organization, and leading in a positive manner. The first man I worked for,
Craig Schurig of Washburn University, believed that coaches who walk around with a smile on
their face and demonstrate passion for their jobs have an uplifting effect on others (Gallo, 2008).
As a result of experiencing this type of leadership, I have focused my attention on creating a
positive atmosphere for my players and coaches. Those who witness my style of coaching would
consider it a charismatic style of leadership. As a charismatic leader, I try to transform the needs,
values, preferences, and aspirations of my followers from self-interests to collective interests
(Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). This style of leadership is extremely effective with my players
because they know I am well prepared and am looking out for their best interest. This style of
leadership requires that I clearly illustrate the importance of the hard work they give, and how it
relates to our ultimate goal of winning the conference championship. In addition, I believe it is
imperative that I ask for their opinions in matters that concern them. My staff would classify me
as a democratic leader because I delegate responsibilities to them and encourage them to use
their imagination and present diversified thoughts. As a result of this type of leadership, my staff
feels comfortable bringing issues to my attention that they may not want to take to our head
coach.

STRATEGY-TO-PERFORMANCE GAP ANALYSIS

10

Sergio Molina has coached our defensive line for the past three seasons, and has
primarily been an autocratic leader. As a result of constant pressure from me, he has forced
himself to explore a more democratic leadership style. This is something that has not been easy
for him, but the increased involvement of our defensive line in preparation has increased their
passion for playing one of the most difficult positions on the field. I have given Sergio a lot of
freedom in coaching the defensive line because he learned how to coach from someone I have a
tremendous amount of respect for. This freedom has been a good thing for the most part;
however, I have noticed that I have to stay on Sergio a little more than I had expected because he
does not have the strongest work ethic. As a result of this type of leadership, I believe Sergio has
grown as a coach and leader.
Bill Stinson, who is the most experienced coach on our staff with over 30 years
experienced, has been the most valuable member of my defensive staff for the past three years.
Bills leadership style and mine are very similar; and therefore, we have built a very strong
working relationship. Unlike the young coaches on our staff, Bill has spent many years refining
his leadership skills; and as a result, is very confident when presenting new or different
information to his defensive backs. Since he is an older coach, many of our players look to Bill
as a father/ grandfather type and work very hard in an effort to not disappoint him. Bills ability
to clearly communicate expectations, integrate new coaching methods, and relate to the players
on a very personal level has allowed him to take them out of their comfort zones and ultimately
get the most out of his players.
Strategies/ Performance Measures

STRATEGY-TO-PERFORMANCE GAP ANALYSIS

11

In the game of small college football, success on the field and off the field has a direct
correlation. College football players must maintain a 2.0 GPA and pass 24 credit hours per year,
if they are to remain eligible to play the following season. If they cannot meet these
requirements, they must miss a year and get their academics in line before they can compete
again. In addition, the goal of our football program is to win the conference championship each
year, which requires us to recruit and sign the best student athletes we can find. In this section, I
will identify the strategies used to help our players succeed in the classroom and on the field, and
the results of utilizing these strategies.
On Field
As stated earlier, there are many strategies being used by our coaching staff to get the
desired results from our players. Some coaches demand loyalty because of the position they
hold, others employ a strategy of including the players in important decisions, and some use a
combination of both strategies. During the early stages of rebuilding the program at
Southwestern College, an autocratic method of leadership was needed to change the negative
culture that existed. Things needed to be done in certain manner, and the players had not earned
the right to ask why or give suggestions. As the players in our program adapted to the new level
of discipline and accountability, it became important to include them in more aspects of the
program, and take a more positive approach. A coach must be reasonable and positive in his
motivational and disciplinary style. Punishment alone will destroy motivation (Barker, 2003).
The players in our program had been beaten down for too long, and it was time to begin building
them up. Although a football programs level of success is measured in wins and losses, I have
noticed which leadership styles have produced the most success on the field. Our players have
not enjoyed very much success in the wins column, but the coaches that have appealed to the

STRATEGY-TO-PERFORMANCE GAP ANALYSIS

12

emotions and concerns of their players have built a relationship that is based on respect and hard
work; and as a result, have enjoyed more positive plays on Saturdays. On the other hand, those
who have stuck to a dictator-like approach have experienced high turnover and limited
improvement on the field. The Southwestern College football program has experienced success
in the winning column only eight times in three years. If this was the only method of
measurement used, our team has been a failure. On the other hand, if one could measure the
level of commitment, loyalty, and enthusiasm within the program they would find that our
program has grown by leaps and bounds.
Off Field
As stated earlier, the success of our football program is not measured strictly on wins and
losses. The number one goal of our coaching staff is to retain and graduate 90% of the student
athletes we recruit and sign at Southwestern. Our first recruiting class was a group of kids that
we signed hastily because of our late hiring. As a result of a lack of research regarding the
players, we only have 6 players left from that initial recruiting class. Most of the kids we lost
were because of academic failures. We did not put enough emphasis on the academic side during
our first year, and suffered the consequences of our lack of attention. As a result of this failure,
we have implemented some new strategies that have helped us build our team academically. The
first thing we implemented was a mandatory time management session with our head coach.
During this session, he guides our players through a daily schedule that will allow them to take
care of their studies, be successful on the football field, and maintain a social life. In addition,
we increased the hours of study hall for freshmen and returners that have not performed up to par
from two hours a week to three hours per week. We adjusted how we administer grade checks
from sending emails to instructors to making our players hand deliver grade checks to their

STRATEGY-TO-PERFORMANCE GAP ANALYSIS

13

instructors. This change has resulted in better class attendance and increased involvement with
instructors. The players are now more engaged in their studies, and we retained 94% of our
freshmen this past year. The result of our new academic strategies is higher retention and a
higher team GPA.
Recommendations
Unfortunately, I have not been able to find our vision statement which does not sit well. I
know that each coach is working towards the same goal of winning a conference championship;
however, without a written statement of where we want to be, and how we plan on getting there,
the leaders of our program are forced to formulate their own vision for the program. My first
recommendation would be to write a detailed vision statement and post it on our website and in
the locker room so that everyone understands what we are trying to accomplish, and how we
plan on getting there. Next, I would encourage every member of the staff to take at least one
leadership course per year, so they can evaluate how their leadership style is affecting the players
and coaches they interact with. In addition, the assistant coaches need to take a more positive
approach to coaching our players to counteract our head coachs autocratic leadership style. I
would increase the number of study hall hours to four per week to emphasize the importance of
success in the classroom. Finally, I believe the mature players on our team need to be given a
more active role in the schemes they are asked to execute during practice and games.

Conclusion

STRATEGY-TO-PERFORMANCE GAP ANALYSIS

14

The football program at Southwestern College is no different than those at any other
small private college. The coaches and players come from different cultures and have varying
expectations about how the team can become the most successful. The coaching staff at the
college has done a poor job of clearly articulating the vision of the program, and must take the
time to formulate a vision statement that can be seen and repeated. The coaches on the staff that
are willing to give up a certain amount of authority, in an effort to gain enthusiasm and
commitment have experienced the most gains by the players they coach. On the other hand,
those coaches who insist on using a dictator-like approach continue to struggle with motivation,
retention, and commitment. By focusing on motivation, instead of scheme, the program can get
the most out of the players we have and enjoy success on the field of play. Positive motivation
lets the player know whether or not the course of action he is pursuing is in fact accomplishing
the desired results and, therefore, whether or not a change in plans and strategy is needed
(Scanlan, 1981). Coaches and people who are not willing to change will continue to experience
their current struggles; and therefore, never experience the amount of success they are capable of
achieving.

References

STRATEGY-TO-PERFORMANCE GAP ANALYSIS

15

Barker, C. (2003). Personality theory in coaching [Electronic version]. Coach & Athletic
Director, 73(3), 68.
Gallo, C. (2008). Employee motivation the Ritz-Carlton way. Retrieved February 7, 2010, from
Businessweek.com Website:
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/feb2008/sb20080229_347490.htm.
Redford, K. (2006). feedback. Training & Coaching Today, 6. Retrieved February 7, 2010,
from ABIINFORM Trade & Industry. (Document ID: 1143573391).
Scanlan, B. (1981). Creating a climate for achievement. [Electronic version]. Business Horizons,
24(2)p. 5.
Shamir, B., House, R., & Arther, M. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership:
a self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594.