Leadership and Public Perception in Crisis: A Case Study

This case study examines the public perception of leaders following public failures, using the examples of two coaches, Coach Leach and Coach Barnett. The assignment analyzes the key issues each coach faced, including attribution biases and discrepancies between self-perception and public image. It explores possible solutions, such as switching leadership styles, utilizing charisma, and implementing genuine apologies. The analysis also provides recommendations for improving public impressions and managing crises, highlighting the importance of authentic leadership. Finally, the case study considers the risks associated with different approaches, such as the potential consequences of not apologizing or mismanaging a crisis, and the different outcomes for each coach.

Perceptions of Leaders Following Public Failures: A Tale of Two Coaches
Student’s name
Institutional Affiliation(s)

Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................2
Issues...........................................................................................................................................................2
Possible Solutions........................................................................................................................................4
Recommendation........................................................................................................................................5
Risk..............................................................................................................................................................5

Introduction
Prior to the incident, I would assume the public perceived Coach Leach as “an adept
strategist with a sometimes-quirky personality (he apparently loved pirates and was known to
lecture his team on the history of Caribbean pirates in the past),”
Thus, the public perceived Coach Leach as a blessing. Furthermore, his background
secured his adept strategy as a success. After the incident with Adam James, I would say the
public’s perception of Coach Leach went downhill. With sworn affidavits from both Doctor Phy
and athletic trainer, Steve Pincock released, it is almost impossible to see how the public’s
perception could not have been shattered.
With that being said, I believe Coach Leach’s self-perception was completely
inconsistent with the general public. He did not see himself as such, and that can be seen in his
behavior in-group favoritism, or “preferential treatment to a member of his group (in this case
Adam James) that was unfair or harmful,” That certainly was unfair and quite harmful! It can
also be seen that he did not think his doings were wrong in his interview with ESPN analyst Rece
Davis.
Issues
I believe the inconsistency with these two perceptions arose because of the bias blind
spot, which is defined as, “the tendency for people to ignore their own bias while recognizing or
exaggerating bias in others,”. In my opinion, Coach Leach ignored his own bias regarding Adam
James (his sense of entitlement and his supposed “lazy” work ethic). Instead, he exaggerated the
biases of Adam James, stating;
“Adam James was a disgruntled student-athlete that like many were not happy
with their playing time.”-Coach Leach, 2008

He suggested Adam was biased towards him due to his unhappiness with the play time allotted.
The inconsistency with these two perceptions also stems from a difference in levels. Coach
Leach gave blame for the incident’s occurrence due to attribution on the interpersonal level, or
“blame is attributed to another person with whom you interact,” who in this case was Adam
James. While the public believed Coach Leach should have given blame for the incident on
himself or the intrapersonal level.
Much like Coach Leach’s position, I feel Coach Barnett’s perception of himself versus
the public’s perception differed. Coach Barnett seemed to falsify any accusations made by Katie
Hnida in her interview with Sports Illustrated;
“Not one time did I ever see or hear about anybody treating her wrong.”
“There isn’t a shred of evidence [to back up Hnida’s rape allegation].”
And let’s not forget what he had to say about the alumni-kicker.
“Katie was a girl. Not only was she a girl, she was terrible. There was no other
way to say it. She could not kick the ball through the uprights…It’s a guy’s sport,
and [male players] felt like Katie was forced on them. It was clear Katie was not
very good.”
The public didn’t seem to think Barnett’s words, or actions of denial were very
appropriate, which can be seen in Washington Post writer, Tom Knott’s statement and several
other reporters added their two-cents to Barnett’s actions potentially endangering the well-being
of others.
The various excerpts showcase the difference in perception of Coach Barnett. Much like
Coach Leach’s discrepancy between perceptions, the discrepancy between the perceptions of
Coach Barnett stems from a bias-blind spot. Barnett failed to see his own bias against woman

football players, and instead blames Katie’s perception of him for the issue. After all, Katie was
quoted in her interview saying; “He didn’t want me on the team in the first place. I thought for
sure he’d kick me off.”
Possible Solutions
Coach Leach could have more effectively managed this “individual crisis” by switching
his leadership style from Authoritarian to Team Leader. Switching his style to team-leader-style
could’ve resulted in a higher concern for his players; such as Adam James, while keeping high
concern for the task at hand; which is competing and winning the Alamo Bowl. If he utilized the
team-leader-style, Coach Leach might have never encountered this crisis, to begin with! In
addition, had Coach Leach been charismatic under his individual crisis, he may have had more
people backing his allegations of Adam James being “lazy” and flaunting his “sense of
entitlement.” Being charismatic means to “show sensitivity to the environment and to follows so
that the needed of the followers are addressed,” If Coach Leach had charisma under his belt, he
would’ve shown sensitivity to James’s concussion! Typically, charismatic leaders “hold an
unmistakable appeal to followers,” With that being said, Leach could’ve had more people
defending his actions, or at very least effectively speaking positively on his behalf, the way many
did for Coach Barnett.
And as for Coach Barnett, he could’ve begun to effectively manage his crisis by not
being sexist saying Katie was a girl. That was his first issue in my opinion. If he wished to hold
these views privately that is fine, however the moment he spoke the above statement to the
media he sealed a fate. A fate that would haunt him as yet another sexist coach. With that being
said- Coach Barnett could have further effectively managed this crisis by thinking before he
spoke! He could’ve even denied commenting to the media on said player’s absence. Barnett

could’ve also utilized the situational leadership approach for this scenario. Situational leadership
is defined as “leaders shift their behaviors to address different situations as they arise,” Utilizing
this approach would have effectively allowed Barnett to properly shift his behaviors towards
Hnida’s claims and addressed them accordingly, as well as the repercussions of investigating her
claims.
Recommendation
Both coaches had a lot of issues utilizing tactics to improve impressions with the public,
as well as their superiors. For starters, they could have utilized the tactic of genuine apologies. If
either coach came forward with an empathetic apology for their actions, words, and wrong-
doings their impressions could have improved with the public. Such an apology would also
involve a personal statement to their victim. If their victim forgave them in the public’s eye, such
as on live TV, impressions could have been improved. For impressions with their superiors, I
would suggest implementing a plan of utilizing authentic leadership. Authentic leadership “offers
an approach that emphasizes ethics and integrity. At the same time, it de-emphasizes the
importance of power,” . Had either coach chosen to implement this new leadership, they
could’ve improved their impressions with both the public and their superiors. It would’ve
allowed either to demonstrate “congruency between their values and actions, hold clear
knowledge of their own values…and communicate their values, which in turn generates trust,” .
If values were communicated clearly, the trust could be associated with their tainted images.
Risk
It was very simple (in my opinion) why one coach was fired (Coach Leach), while the
other one (Coach Barnett) was retained. Coach Barnett publicly apologized on CNN. “I said the
wrong thing about Katie…And I was trying to communicate that we cared about Katie.”

Note, in comparison to Leach, Barnett not only apologized but admitted he was in the wrong for
his previous statements made about Katie. This shows his attribution change from the
interpersonal level, or “the blame attributed to another person with whom (Barnett) interacts,”
to the intrapersonal level, or “the blame attributed to yourself.” He also attempted to squash
allegations of sexist views by defending himself.
I also feel Barnett was only found guilty of misspeaking in regards to a player, while
Coach Leach was found guilty of conducting unethical behaviors against a player. The public I
think could see that too, especially with a member of the Board of Regents statement.
Furthermore, consider the fact that Barnett’s scenario erupted because of a Sports Illustrated
interview with Katie Hnida. There was no evidence backing the allegations of Hnida either.
Meanwhile, Coach Leach’s scenario occurred because of physical, mistreatment of a player;
treatment that had witnesses and sworn affidavits of its occurrence.