I immediately thought of high power distance when reading this case study, as Brooks put himself on a pedestal above his players to create a sense of inequality to drive his players (House et al., 2002). His ideology to get his players prepared for growth by going through pain helped to build physical and mental stamina among them. In the end, Brooks saw his players as mentally tough and goal oriented. In this case, the ends do justify the means, as his approach triggered a sense of determination among them (Northhouse, 2022, p. 488).

Brooks developed a clear and elevating goal, and this became clear in his letter to his players where he claimed he wanted his players to live and work as a single unit, to play a positive and creative game, and in the end make the most out of their dreams (p. 490).

Brooks instilled a results-driven structure from his team composition. He looked for people first, not players first, because he wanted a team with a sound value system. He firmly believed that greatness cannot be put into people, but greatness would somehow be extracted from them and that’s what he based his team structure on (p. 487).

Brooks compiled competent team members not in the sense that they were necessarily talented, but rather they could skate hard and fast. Additionally, he looked for those who showed a driven work ethic and openness to adapting to his hybrid style of hockey. He gauged this by running continuous drills and having the hopeful players complete a 300-question survey to analyze their psychological profile (p. 487).

Brooks created unified commitment by collecting players who had past rivalries with each other. Rather than allowing that to dictate in-team fighting, he made himself the common enemy to bring them together as a unit (p. 487). This has a connection to Conger’s (1991) idea of leaders framing the mission, specifically the belief that there is an antagonist to the team’s mission, namely Brooks himself.

Because of Brooks’s seemingly hostile tendencies, Mike Eruzione stepped up as a unifying force and emotional anchor for the team, creating a collaborative climate within the team. This was apparent when Eruzione rallied his teammates to confront Brooks on all his threats of cutting players, as he believed they had come a long way and became a family (Northhouse, 2022, p. 488).

Brooks set standards of excellence through his preparation plans of player selection, staffing, conditioning, pre-Olympic scheduling, and proposed style of play at his interview (p. 487).

Brooks had principled leadership because he believed being physically and mentally tough on his players was a motivational process to transform his team into becoming cohesive and capable by setting high performance standards (p. 470).

All in all, the 1980 U.S. Olympic Hockey Team was successful because of Brooks’s leadership. He utilized a “tough love” approach to motivate his players. Also, he provided a common purpose for his players by making himself the enemy to unite his players in proving him wrong. Additionally, the mind-games he utilized rekindled a sense of determination in his players.