Leadership Analysis:

Coach Carter

December 26, 2010

Leadership Theories
Dr. Yuval Kalish

Submitted By:
Olga Rubanovskaya
Lara Khamis
Natalie Peled
Talia Schmidt
Shiri Franco
 In 1999, the Richmond High School basketball coach, Ken Carter, made
headlines for benching his undefeated team due to poor academic results. The story
of this basketball team was made into a movie by the name of "Coach Carter." In the
movie Kenneth Carter takes a job coaching the Richmond Oilers high school
basketball team. He discovers the players to be unruly and disrespectful, but
nonetheless, he sets goals for the team, gets to work and starts to gain their respect.
Coach Carter sets strict new rules for the team in the form of contracts; the contract
states that each player must maintain a 2.3 grade point average, must attend classes,
and must wear jackets and ties on game days. Under the tutelage of Coach Carter
the team goes on to win multiple consecutive games. After the team wins a few
games, Coach Carter receives the poor academic reports of the team. He then cracks
down on the team, locks them out of the gym in the midst of the still undefeated
season, and makes the team spend practice time studying in the library. The school
board and the parents fight back against Carter’s actions and manage to remove the
locks off of the gym doors. But, to much surprise, when he arrives at the gym he
finds the players sitting at school desks, studying. The players point out that even
though the gym is reopened, the school board can't force them to play.
Eventually, after bringing up their grades, the team makes it to the state high-
school championship playoffs. Despite the Oilers' strong efforts to win the game,
Carter´s team loses the game by one point. Despite losing the championship game,
the real victory was ultimately won: in a school that only graduated about 50% of
its students (of which only 6% went to college), six of Carter's players graduated
and even went on to college. Coach Carter succeeded in his ultimate goal of
coaching student athletes (as opposed to just athletes) and proving to his team of
players that the dream of going to college was not so farfetched.
In this paper, we analyze the movie according to two main leadership
theories: the Situational Leadership Theory and the Full Range Model of leadership.
We begin by presenting the theories and continue by analyzing the movie according
to each, thus demonstrating the application of these theories to the leadership style
of the main character in the movie, Coach Carter.
 According to the Situational Leadership Theory, each situation where
leadership is apparent, is structured and influenced by situational factors.  Some of
the most influential situational factors include the type of subordinates that the
leader manages.  Hersey and Blanchard’s (1969) Situational Leadership Theory
(SLT) best describes 4 different types of subordinates and, in turn, the type of
leadership necessary for each type of the subordinates to obtain optimal results. 
The Situational Leadership Theory is a subcategory of Contingency Theories. 
Contingency theories explain that subordinates vary based on numerous factors
such as age, gender, skill level or level of motivation.  Therefore, in Hersey and
Blanchard’s theory, the type of leadership is contingent upon the kind of
subordinate managed.
According to SLT, subordinates are categorized by the follower’s maturity or
readiness.  SLT defines the maturity of readiness of followers as “the extent to which
people have the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task” 1. The theory
divides followers’ ability and readiness into four levels, also known as Development
Levels2. The first level occurs when the subordinate is both unable and unwilling to
complete the task at hand, which makes it most challenging for the leader to
manage. The second level occurs when the subordinate is still unable to complete
the task, but is now willing to complete the task and commits to doing what is in
his/her power to do so. The third level is different from the first two levels in that
the subordinate has the ability and is capable of Followers 4 Levels of
Development
completing the task, but has no desire to do so.
Finally, the fourth, and most optimal, developmental D1 - Unable & Unwilling
D2 - Unable & Willing
level occurs when the subordinate is both able and D3 - Able & Unwilling
D4 - Able & Willing
willing to complete the task at hand.3 It is important
to note that after recognizing the type of subordinate

1
Nair, Shreekumar K., Leadership Styles and Effectiveness of Managers in a Public Sector Enterprise.
2
Situational Leadership Theory - The Blanchard and Hersey Model: (Encyclopedia II).
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Situational_leadership_theory_-
_The_Blanchard_and_Hersey_Model/id/2117929
3
Nair, Shreekumar K., Leadership Styles and Effectiveness of Managers in a Public Sector Enterprise
(Abhigyan, 2009).
the leader is working with in the situation, he/she then bases his/her type of
leadership upon two factors, task and relationship.  The leader’s task behavior is
defined by “the extent to which leaders plan, organize, monitor and control the
activities of their subordinates” and the relationship behavior is defined by “the
extent to which leaders maintain personal relationships with their subordinates by
indulging in open communication and by providing emotional support” 4. 
Consequently, the leader must choose his/her leadership style based on the
developmental level of the subordinate.
Due to the fact that the leader must adapt to the subordinates, there are also
four types of leadership styles applicable to each of subordinate types, respectively. 
These leadership styles are directing (telling), coaching (selling), supporting
(participating) and delegating5.  The directing leadership style is used with
subordinates who are unable and unwilling to participate; therefore, the leader
must create specific tasks for the subordinates and supervise them closely.  The
leader uses the coaching style with subordinates who are unable and willing; in this
situation the communication is two-ways and although the leader still creates tasks
and supervises, the subordinates give their opinions and input as well. The third
approach is the supporting approach; this situation gives the subordinates the
opportunity to make certain decisions with the guidance of the leader because
subordinates are unwilling, but still able to complete tasks and make decisions
completely on their own.  The final leadership style is the
4 Types of
Leadership Styles delegating style.  The delegating style gives the subordinates
S1- Directing full control over the decisions and tasks (because they are
S2- Coaching
both able and willing) and, furthermore, gives them the
S3- Supporting
S4- Delegating authority to decide when and how the leader should be
involved in the process.

Unlike other leadership theories, such as Fiedler’s LPC Theory, Hersey and

4
Nair, Shreekumar K., Leadership Styles and Effectiveness of Managers in a Public Sector Enterprise
(Abhigyan, 2009).
5
Situational Leadership Theory - The Blanchard and Hersey Model: (Encyclopedia II).
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Situational_leadership_theory_-
_The_Blanchard_and_Hersey_Model/id/2117929
Blanchard’s SLT believes that leaders can change their leadership style.  The ability
to change one’s leadership style has proven to be one of the most influential and
important progressions in leadership development.
In the scene chosen, the interaction between the leader (Coach Carter) and
his followers (the team) is seen. The first part of the scene shows Coach Carter
reprimanding the team for violating the rules of the contract they signed in the
beginning of the season. Coach Carter is highly focused on the task at hand and is
doing everything possible to achieve it. He is determined to turn his team into
successful student athletes and has secured the support of other teachers to help
them achieve the goal.
However, the only way Coach Carter tries to motivate his basketball players
is by taking punitive measures such as closing the gym for training. He adopts the
telling leadership style to make sure everyone, regardless of his motivation levels
and ability, is working towards improving his GPA or helping his teammates do so.
In the scene it is apparent that the team responds to his behavior in a very
harsh manner; they are completely unwilling to cooperate with the Coach and do
not share his vision. One of the players, Cruz, even goes as far as quitting the team
due to his disappointment with the Coach’s decision and his lack of understanding of
Coach Carter’s motives. However, Coach Carter does not even try to prevent him
from leaving through the use of logical arguments or trying to appeal to Cruz, nor
does he try to explain why maintaining a certain GPA will be beneficial to him and
his teammates. Instead, the Coach just warns Cruz that he is making a mistake and
that by leaving the room he is losing his place on the team. At this point, the other
members of the team are either too intimidated to leave or just decide to accept the
new reality. They do not accept the Coach’s vision, but rather decide to cope with it.
According to the Situational Leadership theory, adopting the telling
leadership style was the best thing Coach Carter could have done in the situation.
His followers were both unable and unwilling to complete the task at hand and did
not want to voluntarily comply with the contract they had signed. They were given
the opportunity to improve their GPA by themselves, however, only half the team
did so. Therefore, according to the theory, adopting any other style would have
been a mistake and even explaining to the team the importance of having a decent
GPA and motivating them through logical arguments would not have yielded the
best results. The Situational Leadership Theory also states that a leader’s high but
realistic expectation leads to high performance of the followers. The scene shows
how this is true when the Coach’s attitude yields results – the team decides not to
play basketball until their GPA is up to standard even though nothing is stopping
them from doing so. Moreover, in the second part of the scene an amazing
transformation in the members of the team is seen: instead of being unmotivated,
bitter and lazy they have become driven, energized and inspired. They no longer
need the Coach to tell them what to do and how to do it. They have taken the
initiative and started making decisions by themselves. In this instance, the theory
would suggest that the best thing Coach Carter could have done is adopt a
delegating leadership style – staying involved in the process but permitting the
followers to take ownership and responsibility for their decisions and actions.
The scene does not just show the change in the behavior of the followers, but
also the transition in the leader’s behavior. Coach Carter adjusts his behavior
according to the maturity level of his followers. He first pushes his followers to
change their attitude using the telling style and then adjusts his behavior
accordingly to fit his leadership style to the new situation.
The theory fails to fully explain the change in the attitude of the followers. It
can only explain part of the transition – how the followers became much more able
during the course of the scene. By adopting the telling style the Coach made the
whole team study hard and perform better. Could adopting the telling style,
however, make the team members more willing?
In this paper we argue that the telling style alone cannot be accountable for a
change in the attitudes of the followers. It is possible to make the team perform
better through force, micro management and intimidation but it is not usually
possible to change their attitude to the task at hand and inspire them to voluntarily
join in the project and accept the vision simply through these means.
Therefore, the leadership style alone cannot lead to a transformation among
the followers. What, then, made all of the team members completely change their
attitudes and become much more willing and accept responsibility for their actions?
What made Cruz, the rebel of the group, come back to the team after firmly making
up his mind and leaving the team forever? These questions will be answered
through the analysis of the Full Range Leadership Model.
The Full Range Model (FRM) is considered one of the most modern
leadership theories. A considerable amount of research has been conducted on the
theory itself and on its validation worldwide. The theory serves as a framework for
the analysis of various leadership styles. The Model’s analysis is based on two main
criteria: how active or inactive the leaders are in fulfilling their roles, and how
effective or ineffective they are in performing their tasks and working with their
followers.6  The FRM can often be viewed as a ladder of leadership styles and is
divided into two leadership types: transactional leadership and transformational
leadership.
Transactional Leadership is a leadership style based on a mutual relation
between a leader and the subordinate. These processes are further marked by
situations in which both parties show interest in one another for one purpose - an
exchange of benefits, meaning that both the leader and the follower have something
to offer one another. Therefore, Transactional leadership suggests that
followers are encouraged by a system of punishment and rewards.
Transactional leadership consists of three levels of leadership: laissez-faire,
management by exception (divided into passive and active), and contingent
reward.7 Laissez-Faire, the lowest form of leadership also known as a non-leader,
occurs when the leader avoids taking responsibilities and
Transactional Leadership
making decisions; the leader is uninvolved with the of FRM
subordinates and offers them no clear goals, expectations 1. Laissez-Faire
2. MBE – passive &
or concern. As a result of this leadership style, active
3. Contingent Reward
subordinates focus on their personal interests, even if it
harms the group or organization. The second level of

6
Bolden, R., Gosling, J, Marturano, A. and Dennison, A Review of leadership Theory And Competency
Framework, Dansford, UK: 2003.P13.
7
transactional leadership is Management by Exception. Management by Exception
(“MBE”) is a conservative approach based on managing and taking corrective
action, which can be taken either passively or actively. Leaders who do not
anticipate problems and only react once a problem has occurred are described as
MBE passive; MBE active leaders actively monitor subordinates and take
corrective actions before the error occurs. Nonetheless, subordinates of MBE
passive and active leaders react to their leaders through fear of the leaders
reaction in a situation where something goes wrong. The highest level a leader
can achieve in transactional leadership is contingent rewards. The level of
contingent rewards occurs when subordinates are familiar with the organization’s
goals and are rewarded when they are achieved. The leaders define clear and
concise goals and actively participate in the achievement of these goals. When the
goals are met, the leader rewards the subordinates and similarly, when goals are
not met, the leader penalizes them.
James MacGreger Burns, who first introduced the concept in his book
“Leadership”, developed the transformational leadership theory. He referred to this
style as “a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers
into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents”. 8 Furthermore, it is
characterized by high effectiveness of the leaders (how effective they are) and their
heavy involvement in the process (how active they are).
According to Bernard Bass, who further developed Burns' transformational
leadership concept, transformational leadership “is closer to the prototype of
leadership that people have in mind when they describe their ideal leader, and it is
more likely to provide a role model with whom subordinates want to identify.” He
further describes that the process activates the subordinate’s higher-order needs
and increases their awareness of task importance and value. And, this idea is
different from Burns’ original concept in that it portrays transformational
leadership as a perpetual process between a leader and his/her subordinates. 9
8
Bolden, R., Gosling, J, Marturano, A. and Dennison, A Review of leadership Theory And Competency
Framework, Dansford, UK: 2003.P13.

9
Bolden, R., Gosling, J, Marturano, A. and Dennison, A Review of leadership Theory And Competency
 Transformational leaders have an extraordinary effect on their subordinates;
they can motivate and inspire them, push them beyond their comfort zone, change
their attitudes and stimulate the curiosity and development of their subordinates.
Some famous transformational leaders are Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandela,
Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln.
  Transformational Leadership is divided into four elements: intellectual
stimulation, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and idealized
influence.10 The lowest level on of transformational
Transformational leadership is intellectual stimulation. Intellectual
Leadership for FRM
stimulation occurs with leaders who consider his/her
1. Intellectual Stimulation
2. Individual Consideration subordinates’ ideas and perspectives. The leader
3. Inspirational Motivation focuses on the subordinates’ ability to grow
4. Idealized Influence
intellectually through challenging current processes,
creating new solutions to existing problems, using
creativity in their work, and solving their own problems at work. Individualized
consideration, the second level of transformational leadership, focuses more on
each of the individual subordinates, rather than group as a whole. In these
situations, leaders supervise each subordinate separately and guide each according
to his/her abilities. Additionally, leaders concentrate on revealing the potential of
individuals by providing a supportive environment. Leaders also delegate tasks to
subordinates tailored specifically to each of their abilities and skill levels. The third
level of transformational leadership, inspirational motivation, provides a clear
vision of the organization’s future goals and motivates the subordinates to want to
achieve these goals; additionally it stretches the limits of what is perceived as
possible and, in turn, makes subordinates feel that the new goals are achievable.
One of the most defining factors of this style is that the leader unites the
subordinates’ personal vision with the organization’s vision, ultimately making
them work together towards achieving the common goals. Finally, the highest level
on the transformational leadership ladder is idealized influence. Idealized influence
Framework, Dansford, UK: 2003.P13.

10
describes a situation in which the leader is considered the role model for the
subordinates, and the subordinates tend to trust, respect and admire the leader. In
this type of leadership, the subordinates are overwhelmed by the leader’s charisma
and therefore actively support the leader. Leaders who reach this level of
leadership also have high ethical and moral standards. This is the level of leadership
that most leaders aspire to reach. Many leaders can progress along the leadership
style ladder, while others may stay at one level of leadership indefinitely.
An analysis of Coach Carter through the lens of the Full Range Model of
Leadership reveals that Coach Carter operates at several levels along the range,
employing both transactional and transformational behaviors. Our scene begins as
the members of the team enter the library, unaware of why their regularly
scheduled basketball practice was cancelled, or why the gym doors have been
chained and locked shut. Over-confident and reeling from an undefeated record of
basketball games, team members are surprised to encounter a no-nonsense shout of
“Quiet!” from Coach Carter, to bring the surprise gathering quickly to order.
  Straight to business, Coach Carter begins, “Gentlemen, in this hand, I hold
contracts signed by me and signed by you. In [the other] hand, I hold academic
progress reports filled out by your teachers.” The contracts to which Coach Carter
refers were signed by each member as a condition of their participation on the
basketball team, and stipulate that the athletes maintain a 2.3 grade point average,
attend all classes, and wear jackets and ties on game days. Carter proceeds to rattle
off a list of dismal academic performance statistics, all of which lead him to conclude
that that team has failed to uphold its agreement. He determines that the
consequence of such a failure is to discontinue basketball practices and lock-down
the gym until academic performance is improved.
In doing so, Coach Carter demonstrates transactional behaviors: contingent-
reward bordering on MBE-Passive, depending on the point of view. In his decision
to enact a clear and decisive penalty in response to the breech of agreed-upon
expectations, Coach Carter’s perspective is one of contingent-reward: simply put,
each action has an anticipated consequence, in this case, punishment. However, the
team perceives it as being MBE-Passive. From their perspective, Coach Carter is
being overly critical and is overreacting to a minor fault, while disregarding the
outstanding achievements of the team on the basketball court.
Overall, however, the “transactional” insistence on upholding academic
contracts is just a means towards a “transformational” end; and is part of Coach
Carter’s persistent overriding vision of uniting his team of student athletes and
giving them a chance at a meaningful future.
  In true charismatic communicative style, a feature of Inspirational
Motivation, Carter’s address opens with a Sensing orientation; focusing on the
papers in his hand, the six players who are failing at least one class and the eight
players getting ‘incompletes’ based on attendance. Only then does he shift to
Intuiting as he discusses broad implications for the team’s future. We observe that
Coach Carter respectfully addresses the team as ‘gentlemen’ and the individuals as
‘sir,’ as part of his continued embodiment of Idealized Influence – walking the walk,
talking the talk. He insists that the team, himself included, bear a collective
responsibility for its failure to uphold the contracts: “Gentlemen, you have failed to
uphold – no, I’m sorry – we have failed. We have failed each other.” 
Coach Carter demonstrates Inspirational Motivation in his unwavering,
optimistic belief that the team can, with the proper collective focus and external
support, successfully meet the terms of their contracts and fully embody the dual-
role of student-athletes. “Know that we are a team,” he reminds them, and enlists
the help of his fellow teachers, “so that we can reach our goals,” thus empowering
them to achieve this vision. Carter makes clear that team performance outweighs
individual performance: just as one player does not score all the points for the team,
one player’s high GPA does not exempt him from accountability with regard to the
team’s academic performance. 
The impact of Coach Carter’s mix of transactional and transformational
approaches is epitomized by Cruz's outburst: “I killed myself for you, Sir, to get back
on the team!” This player had initially had to complete a nearly impossible set of
contingent-reward tasks in order to earn his place back on the team; and over time,
bought into the vision inspired by Coach Carter’s leadership. Towards the end of
our scene, we see the vision actively promoted and shouldered collectively by all
team members: they have finally appropriated the vision and begin to pursue it
independently of their leader. The team members, of their own accord, choose to
use practice time for studying, even after the lock-down has been revoked by the
School Board. This is the mark of Coach Carter’s successful leadership.  
Ultimately, we can see that the mix of transactional and transformational
leadership behaviors employed by Coach Carter does not span the entire full range
model. Rather, in our selected scenes, the behaviors exhibited represent MBE-
Passive (as perceived by the team), Contingent-Reward, Inspirational Motivation
and Idealized Influence. Laissez-faire, MBE-Active, Individualized Consideration
and Intellectual Stimulation are not featured. (Even though the task at hand
involved academic pursuit, it is not an embodiment of Intellectual Stimulation;
which is most notably associated with the idea of encouraging followers to challenge
their leaders and think for themselves about how to accomplish tasks.) With his
own special cocktail of leadership behaviors, Coach Carter managed to transform
and lead his team toward greatness: in their academic responsibilities, athletic
performances and future endeavors.
The Full Range Model enables us to dissect and categorize the different
elements of Coach Carter’s “leadership cocktail.” As noted, we see elements of
Contingent Reward, Inspirational Motivation and Idealized Influence. However, this
model doesn’t necessarily help us to understand why these specific behaviors were
chosen and not others from the range. Was Coach Carter successful because he
chose these specific elements, or would any combination of transactional and
transformational behaviors have sufficed? Is it an arbitrary choice, perhaps based
on Coach Carter’s own comfort zone of behaviors? Or does it have something to do
with the situation at hand and the followers in question? It would seem that these
questions can best be answered by returning to the Situational Leadership Theory.
This would support the case that Coach Carter’s choice of leader behaviors were
based on his assessment of the followers, and indicated his best response given this
assessment.
As we have shown in the empirical analysis of the movie, each theory has
some limitations and therefore can be criticized in several ways. The situational
leadership theory can only explain one part of the observed transition – how the
followers became much more able during the course of the scene (mostly physical
strength and endurance practice) - however, it does not fully explain the change in
the attitude and willingness of the followers. By adopting the telling style, the Coach
made the whole team study hard and perform better, but it could not make the team
members more willing. In order to explain this transformation we needed to
analyze the movie according to the full range model of leadership.
The full range model of leadership, though spanning a range of different
leader behaviors, fails to explain the exact reason why Coach Carter chooses certain
leadership styles from both the transactional and transformational ranges. This
limitation of the full range model forces us to refer back to the situational leadership
theory to for an explanation. The situational leadership provides us with the
understanding that, based on the readiness and willingness of followers, leaders
must adapt their own leadership approach. It can be said, therefore, that the
relationship between the two theories is complementary in nature: the limitations
of one theory will lead to the search for answers within the other and vice-versa.
The final conclusion is that we need both theories in order to effectively and
holistically analyze the scene of our movie: each theory alone cannot fully explain all
its nuances. The use of one theory will leave the viewer with questions that cannot
be answered without the supplemental analysis that the other theory provides.
 
 
 Works Cited

 Barbuto, John, Lance Brown. “Full Range Leadership". Neb

Guide.http://advisor.unl.edu/wanttoknowmore/Full-Range-Leadership.pdf, (December 15,
2010).
 Bass Bernard, Ronaldo Riggio.“Transformational leadership”. 2nd Ed.

 Bodla, Mahmoud. "Comparative Study of Full Range Leadership Model among Faculty
Members in Public and Private Sector Higher Education Institutes and Universities."
International Journal of Business and Management: COMSATS Institute of Information
Technology (Sahiwal Campus): Sahiwal, Pakistan: 2010:
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/4319/4630,December25,20
10.
 Bolden, R., Gosling, J, Marturano, A. and Dennison, “A Review of leadership Theory And
Competency Framework”. 2003.

 Breaux, Paul." EMS Leadership Part 5: Idealized Influence Transformational Leadership in

EMS". EMS WORLD .http://www.emsworld.com/features/article.jsp?
id=15084&siteSection=3, (December 15, 2010).
 Cahn T-Ham, Alvin. “The Full Range Leadership Model and its Application to the Singapore
Armed Forces".Journal of the Singaphore armed forces.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2001/Vol27_3/5.htm, (December
17, 2010).
 Shreekumar K. Nair. Leadership Styles and Effectiveness of Managers in a Public Sector
Enterprise. Abhigyan, 2009.
 Situational Leadership Theory. Encyclopedia II – Situational Leadership Theory – The
Blanchard and Hersey Model
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Situational_leadership_theory_-
_The_Blanchard_and_Hersey_Model/id/2117929