Skip to main content

PARTICIPATIVE (DEMOCRATIC) LEADERSHIP


YALF SEASON 2, HELD IN DOVA HOTELS LEKI LAGOS NGN
A participative leader must have a pioneering, imaginative and adventuresome mindset in order to empower employees to make decisions involving the organization (Smith, 2008). Participative leaders empower their employees in the decision-making process by meeting with them periodically and listening and trusting them (UCF, n.d.).  Wolf, Boland & Aukerman (1994b) defined empowerment as “the awareness of a person’s potential talents, gifts, and power and how a person can contribute to the organization’s goals (as cited in Thyer, 2003). Participative leadership requires and encourages participation from everyone and shares decision-making for the betterment of the organization.  Employee motivation is derived through obtaining financial and self-image awards.  Leaders reward employees through financial gains and positive evaluations which in turn increases motivation and morale (Murphy, 2005).
YALF SEASON 2 WITH K. BANGWELL
            The research contends there are some advantages and disadvantages to using this style of leadership.  Skogan (2006) noted that leaders who allowed employees to participate in decision-making showed improvement in labor-management relations, encouraged employee commitment, enhanced community service, and diminished employee rejections of police restructuring (as cited in Steinheider & Wuestewald, 2008).  Research provides a plethora of findings for implementing participative leadership such as: increased occupational contentment, organizational allegiance, an organizational ownership behavior, apparent support, labor-management collaboration and employee performance (Steinheider & Wuestewald).  Smith (2008) suggested that the police rank structure impeded this style of leadership.  Furthermore, the police organizational system has embedded a culture of risk aversion by continuing in a hierarchical structure. The researcher suggested that since the hierarchical system promoted employees to rank that it actually blocked participation at different levels within the organization due to a lack of trust or experience.  Other researchers suggest that some have been left out of the decision-making process by allowing employees to participate at a suggestion level or their discretionary decision-making on the street.  Labor unions have increased their control within the police organization, but have not been included in the decision-making process.  Flynn (2004) and Skogan (2004) contend these labor unions are not being asked to help in the decision-making process because of the hierarchical ethos of the police organization and the selfishness of the labor unions (as cited in Steinheider & Wuestewald, 2008).  Ospina & Yaroni (2003) suggested that labor union representatives and police leaders only cooperate with each other when there is a critical situation (as cited in Steinheider & Wuestewald, 2008).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FUNCTIONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Function of the Holy Spirit. This list of the 70 Functions of the Holy Spirit come from her research. He leads and directs. (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 2:27; 4:1; Acts 8:29; Romans 8:14) The Holy Spirit speaks – in, to and through. (Matthew 10:20; Acts 1:16; 2:4; 13:2; 28:25; Hebrews 3:7) He gives power to cast out devils. (Matthew 12:28) He releases power. (Luke 4:14) The Holy Spirit anoints. (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38) The Holy Spirit “comes upon” or “falls on”. (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 2:25; 3:22; 4:18; John 1:32,33; Acts 10:44; 11:15) He baptizes and fills. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 1:15,41,67; 3:16, 4:1; John 1:33; Acts 1:4-5; 2:4; 4:8,31; 6:3,5; 7:55; 10:47; 11:24; 13:9,52; 1 Corinthians 12:12) He gives new birth. (John 3:5,8) He leads into worship. (John 4:23) He flows like a river from the spirit man. (John 7:38-39) He ministers truth. (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13) He dwells in people. (John 14:
Post a Comment
Read more

SETTING A DIRECTION VS PLANNING AND BUDGETING

Since the function of leadership is to produce change, setting the direction of that change is fundamental to leadership. Setting direction is never the same as planning or even long-term planning, although people often confuse the two. Planning is a management process, deductive in nature and designed to produce orderly results, not change. Setting a direction is more inductive. Leaders gather a broad range of data and look for patterns, relationships, and linkages that help explain things. What’s more, the direction-setting aspect of leadership does not produce plans; it creates vision and strategies. These describe a business, technology, or corporate culture in terms of what it should become over the long term and articulate a feasible way of achieving this goal. Most discussions of vision have a tendency to degenerate into the mystical. The implication is that a vision is something mysterious that mere mortals, even talented ones, could never hope to have. But developing
2 comments
Read more

ALIGNING PEOPLE VS ORGANIZING AND STAFFING

A central feature of modern organizations is interdependence, where no one has complete autonomy, where most employees are tied to many others by their work, technology, management systems, and hierarchy. These linkages present a special challenge when organizations attempt to change. Unless many individuals line up and move together in the same direction, people will tend to fall all over one another. To executives who are overeducated in management and undereducated in leadership, the idea of getting people moving in the same direction appears to be an organizational problem. What executives need to do, however, is not organize people but align them. Managers “organize” to create human systems that can implement plans as precisely and efficiently as possible. Typically, this requires a number of potentially complex decisions. A company must choose a structure of jobs and reporting relationships, staff it with individuals suited to the jobs, provide training for those who need it,
Post a Comment
Read more