A paper I wrote for a leadership class not too long ago. Re-read it, and thought it had some good "nuggets" so I thought I would post it.
Abstract
Each leader has a different
leadership style. As culture has changed, so also has the approach to
leadership communication. As the modern culture has shifted to a more social
perception and attitude toward their work organizations, leaders have adapted
to a more participative form of leadership that allows subordinates more
creative control and liberty over their tasks and goals. Theory Y, developed by
George McGregor, asserts that every many is able to join their own talents and
skills with that of the organization for the mutual benefit of both parties.
This theory, while often not perfect in implementation, can have positive
effects when applied to the academic world, particularly in student leadership.
Participative leadership in an academic setting promotes the guided growth and
knowledge of the student, and better prepares them for careers in their
respective fields.
Keywords: Participative leadership,
empowerment, self-efficacy, Theory Y, personal commitment
Participative Leadership
and the Student
Just as each workplace has a different
organizational culture, so does each leader have a different style of
leadership that affects that culture. Many leaders take an authoritarian route
and have the final say over everything that occurs in the office or on the
assembly line. This style of leadership is useful for maintaining productivity,
but it prevents the subordinates from expressing any kind of creativity or
further developing skills. If the leader fails to see the potential in one or
more of their subordinates, then that person’s talents and skills goes unused
and remains undeveloped. In the past, this style of leadership has been the
dominant train of thought. Leaders may work to develop skills and promote
growth and knowledge among workers, but at the end of the day the workplace was
largely about maintaining productivity and running a “tight ship.”
Today, we live in a very different
culture. Exponential growth in communication technologies and systems designed
to improve workflow have created a much more social organizational culture. As
Halal et al states (1981), “within the past few years many signs of widespread
technological and social change have appeared which seem to indicate that
participative management should be taken more seriously” (p. 20). Now, three
decades later, those technological changes have forever changed the way that we
communicate with each on a professional, and even on a personal level. These
changes demand a different approach to leadership. Subordinates no longer just
want to have a job, instead they desire to be involved and feel like they are a
part of a community. They desire a role in that community that is the best use
of the skills and talents they have to offer; one that gives weight and merit
to their voice. This changing perception of the workplace among the culture has
created a different leadership style, known as participative leadership, which
allows for freedom of thought, collaboration, and shared responsibility for a
healthier organizational culture.
There is likely not a better place to
explore and encourage participative leadership than in an academic setting.
Many school systems on the elementary level have already begun developing
programs that encourage student leadership. In these schools, they utilize a
“new democratic model of leading… [that is] less about leadership than about
leaderful action—a model of leadership that celebrates advocacy, champions
collaboration, encourages facilitation, embraces creativity, promotes
sustainability, and fosters personal responsibility for civic engagement”
(McKibben, 2004, p. 81). These school systems are capitalizing on a theory
created half a century ago that speaks to the nature within us all to be
leaders, at the very least, of our own individual lives.
Theory Y
Theory Y was presented by George McGregor
in 1960. McGregor asserts that his theory is an attempt to understand human
nature, and not a guide for a certain management style or ideal. While it was
not his original assertion, Theory Y has nevertheless been married to the idea
of participative leadership. “Theory
Y states, in essence, that man is capable of integrating his own needs and
goals with those of the organization; that he is not inherently lazy and
indolent; that he is by nature capable of exercising self-control and
self-direction, and that he is capable of directing his efforts toward organizational
goals” (Schein, 1975, p.20). Contrary to the authoritarian view (Theory X) that
is more autocratic in nature, Theory Y assumes that subordinates desire to take
an active role in their workplace, and that a more collaborative approach to
management does not negatively affect productivity. By allowing subordinates to
participate in the control and management of their tasks, it creates a more
personally committed and self-sufficient employee.
Participative leadership requires an
extensive amount of communication and willingness to compromise. As Schein
(1975) states, “A Theory Y manager is prepared to deal with task-related
conflict and to seek integrative solutions if the organization is prepared to
adjust work flows, organizational structure, and so forth to permit the
solution to be implemented” (p. 29). A leader that seeks to use a participative
style will serve the role of mediator. Overall goals will be communicated, and
tasks will be given based on the strengths of each contributing member.
Participative leaders take a proactive role in the work of their subordinates
and seek to draw out their skills in order to integrate them into the overall
goals and methods of the organization. The participative leader, utilizing
Theory Y, will not hover and dictate tasks, but will cultivate a relationship
that seeks to draw on the person’s predisposition to desire involvement.
Empowerment
Lee et al (2001) define empowerment
as, “the psychological state of a subordinate perceiving four dimensions of meaningfulness,
competence, self-determination, and impact, which is affected by empowering
behaviors of the supervisor” (p. 686). Simply put, empowerment occurs when subordinates
feel and act as if the supervisor has enough trust in them to complete tasks and
goals. Empowerment is not immediate among all subordinates. Sometimes, there is
a lack of confidence or even a lack of competence. Each case will be different,
because each employee is different and communicates differently. This is why it
is essential for the leader to take an active role in the organizational
culture, and take the time to get to know each employee’s strengths and
weaknesses. Continuing to pursue an empowering culture will lead to employees
that are confident and take pride in their work. Empowerment allows for a sense
of ownership among subordinates because they are made to feel like each task is
custom-fitted for their skill set. Empowering subordinates can have a positive
effect on productivity and quality.
Self-Efficacy
The employee that is continually
encouraged and empowered in their position will begin to gain a sense of
self-efficacy. Bandura et al (1989) state, “that self-efficacy is belief in
one’s capability to mobilize motivation, cognitive resources and series of
actions needed to meet given situational demands” (p. 806). Subordinates that
have a high self-efficacy do not need to be constantly coddled or reassured of
tasks or worth. Instead, they are confident that they have the skill-set
necessary to complete the tasks given to them, and they know how to make it
happen. These employees will not be satisfied with merely completing a task,
but will seek ways to improve workflows, communications, and methods. They will
constantly be improving themselves and their environment. From a leadership
perspective, this kind of employee becomes invaluable. They confront issues
before they become problems and are proactive in their work and tasks.
Management truly becomes participative when an employee is competent,
confident, and seeks out ways to improve.
Personal
Commitment
Participative leadership assumes and
encourages a personal commitment from the subordinate. When leaders are
proactive and seek to empower, train, encourage, and stimulate growth in their
subordinates, they are essentially making an investment. The Theory Y leader
understands that “most organization members are capable of contributing more
than demanded by their present jobs and thus represent untapped potential for
the organization, potential which the capable manager develops and invests in
improved performance” (Miles et al, 1971, p. 50). The true test of the
participative method then comes with how much that subordinate is willing to
return that commitment. The employee that is not committed will feel as though they
are at just another job. The committed employee; however, feels a sense of
community and worth by the tasks that they complete. Regardless of whether
their job is on an assembly line or in the corporate office, the subordinate is
committed to completing their task well.
Leaders that promote these
principles among their subordinates are taking steps to create teams and groups
of workers that are self-managing and self-leading. This has long-term positive
effects toward the organizational culture. As Manz et al (1987) state, “when
employees become members of a self-managing group, they tend to define their
work roles in terms of their value as contributors to the group’s primary task
rather than in relation to one specific job” (p. 9). A subordinate who feels
valuable in their role is more likely to seek to improve and maintain quality
performance. While there are certainly a countless number of positive
attributes of pursuing this type of leadership style, there are still some
limitations and boundaries that must be evaluated and defined by the leader.
The Limits of Participative Leadership
Like any great theory, problems arise
when attempting to take it from theory to implementation. As Halal et al (1981)
state, “One of the greatest barriers to the successful implementation of
participative management involves a tacit ‘conspiracy of dependence,’ in which
superiors find it hard to relinquish some of their control and subordinates are
reluctant to assume greater responsibility for their behavior” (p. 22). When
subordinates are subjected to a more authoritarian style, it might be difficult
to break out of that mold and take on more responsibility in the workplace. People
can sometimes become complacent when they are not challenged or the work does
not change all that often. When that occurs, subordinates will be wary to take
on additional tasks, which in turn creates a downward spiral where the leader
is forced to revert to the authoritarian style to make sure the tasks are being
completed. When attempting to change to a more participative form of
leadership, the leader should be patient and allow the change to take place
gradually. Communicating the change to the subordinates, and allowing them to
add their input will allow them to take a sense of ownership in the change. Not
doing so, will lead to widespread rejection of the changes and the desired
result will not be achieved.
It is also important to remember that
participative leadership does not equate to a complete democratic style. There
still must be structure, and there still must be overall leadership that seeks
to guide and maintain momentum toward completing tasks and goals. The leader
cannot simply give everyone the same amount of power that they possess, for a
number of reasons. More assertive personalities would soon take over, while the
more passive subordinates would find their voices silenced. The leader is still
an essential part of the participative leadership model, because they create
the parameters and guidelines within which the subordinates can operate. Not
only are they a point of contact for permissions and approvals, but they can
also be utilized as a resource. Whether it be training, networking, or some
other logistics of the task, often the leader can make the right connections to
help the subordinate complete the task. The leader that is good at the
participative model is approachable, down-to-earth, and is always proactive and
aware of their subordinates.
Even with the leader who excels at
participative leadership, there is always going to be an exception or
circumstance that dictates a change in the way things typically operate. As Fox
(1977) states, “And in general terms,
[McGregor] observes that it is sometimes necessary to issue a direct order, to
take formal disciplinary action, and to terminate an employee” (p. 17). There
are going to be times when a subordinate refuses to operate as a part of the
team, and therefore becomes a problem to the workflow. When these types of
problems arise, it is the job of the leader to take control of the situation,
communicate the consequences to the subordinates, and maintain the culture of
the organization. This is often a difficult task, as it requires the leader to
take on several different roles and models for leadership simultaneously.
Finally, it is important for leaders to
realize that participative leadership is not just about expanding the roles or
requirements of the subordinates. While that certainly may show them that the
leader trusts their ability, it does not change the role of the leader in the
workplace. “Many managers still see job enlargement as a form of benevolent
autocracy, and their unguided attempts to enlarge jobs fall more within the
realm of manipulation than job enrichment” (Myers, 1968, p. 9). The goal of
participative leadership is to create an organizational culture that allows the
subordinate to take ownership and truly feel like they are valuable and
involved in a community, rather than just a job. While it may result in a
larger workload for the subordinate, that is not the ultimate goal. Instead, it
is intended to enhance the work experience making it more fulfilling and
rewarding which is mutually beneficial to the subordinate as well as to the
organization.
Application in the Academic World
As previously stated, there is likely no
better place to explore and use participative leadership than in an academic
setting, and many school systems are already implementing such systems, even on
an elementary level. These steps have positive effects in multiple ways. “In
order to increase the depth of a positive climate and culture within a school
community (and thereby better preparing students for the workforce), a
distributed leadership framework that includes student-led responsibilities has
been found to be beneficial” (Louis et al., 2010). By allowing students to
participate in these forms of communications, they are learning to be proactive
and confident, and are receiving training in leadership characteristics early. At
the collegiate level, this form of leadership can be invaluable, especially in
career fields that dictate a more hands on approach, as opposed to a strictly
theoretical approach. Students who are able to take control of their own
education, and are given the guidance that is inherent within participative
leadership will find themselves well prepared for careers in their respective
fields. Likewise, creating student leaders allows the student to feel like they
are valuable at their current level, and encourages them to continue to pursue
further opportunities. Students who are bound to only a classroom experience
will never be fully exposed to the resources that collegiate institutions can
offer. It is essential for educators and administrators to push their students
out of their comfort zone and encourage them to pursue avenues where they can
develop their skills and become confident workers, and can share that knowledge
with other students.
Conclusion
There are many different styles of
leadership, and sometimes each situation dictates a different style. In some
instances, the authoritarian style is the more appropriate form. Likewise,
authoritarian leaders are not necessarily grumpy “Scrooge’s,” hovering over
their subordinates and not allowing them a day off on Christmas. Many command
the respect of their subordinates and their productivity is high. Their system
works. In reality, the best system is likely a combination of multiple systems
depending on situations and tasks that arise within the organization.
Participative leadership, while possessing flaws, can encourage a system that
promotes creativity, self-confidence, and self-dependence among subordinates.
Ultimately, it relies on Theory Y, which assumes that a person is capable of
marrying their goals and talents with that of the organization, and that they
can find value and ownership in their work without being prompted or demanded
to do so by leadership. This system has incredible value in the academic world
as it promotes learning and advancement of knowledge, skills, networking, and
influence, and it does so by the effort of the subordinate, with the leader’s
guidance and boundaries. Implementing this system in the academic setting can
potentially create a person who will be better prepared for leadership roles in
their career fields.
References
Bandura, A., & Wood, R.E. (1989).
Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on
self-regulation of complex decision. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805-814.
Fox, W.M. (1977). Limits to the use of
consultative-participative management. California
Management Review, 20(2), 17-22.
Halal, W.E., & Brown, B.S. (1981).
Participative management: Myth and reality. California
Management Review. 23(4), 20-32.
Lee, M., & Koh, J. (2001) Is
empowerment really a new concept? International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(4), 684-695.
Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K.,
& Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student
learning. The Wallace Foundation.
Manz, C.C., & Sims, H.P. (1987).
Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing
work teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 32(1), 106-129.
McKibben, S. (2004). The Power of Student Voice. Educational leadership.
Miles, R.E., & Ritchie, J.B. (1971). Participative
management: Quality vs. quantity. California
Management Review, 13(4), 48-56.
Myers, M. (1968). Every employee a
manager. California Management Review,
10(3), 9-20.
Schein, E.H. (1975). In defense of Theory
Y. Organizational Dynamics, 4(1), 17-30
No comments:
Post a Comment