Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards where appropriate. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.

I’m working on a psychology question and need a sample draft to help me study.

 

Get Your Custom Essay Written From Scratch
We have worked on a similar problem. If you need help click order now button and submit your assignment instructions.
Just from $9/Page
Order Now

For this assignment, analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the three different leadership styles: transformational, authentic, and servant.

To complete this task, create a table where you list each of the leadership styles and the pro and cons of implementing these styles in the following types of social services agencies. Be sure to briefly assess how each style may influence social work values and ethics related to practice.

  • Children’s protective service
  • Community service agencies
  • Schools
  • The justice system
  • Hospitals

Support your assignment with at least three scholarly resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including seminal articles, may be included.

Length: one comprehensive chart, not including title and reference pages

Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards where appropriate. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.

 

UNFORMATTED ATTACHMENT PREVIEW

Leadership in Social Work: Where Are We? W. Patrick Sullivan ABSTRACT This article provides an overview of the status of leadership in social work, with an emphasis on unique functions and challenges leaders face in the field. Included in this review is a consideration of the concept of leadership as distinct from management, a historical review of the development of leadership as a specialty within social work, and a look at the reported effectiveness of various leadership models. Finally, it is argued that among the various leadership models to choose from, client-centered leadership is consistent with the goals and values that undergird the profession. ARTICLE HISTORY Accepted: December 2015 When tracing the evolution of social work practice, one can draw from certain milestones, movements, and events, and from these, fashion a reasonably coherent story line. The task becomes far more complicated when considering the concept of leadership within the profession. Taking the historical context into account helps illustrate why this is a challenging endeavor. First, the emergence of social work practice from volunteerism and philanthropy to a professional enterprise had an impact on the discipline broadly. An equally if not more potent factor in the slow and uneven development of leadership as a discrete function and role in the field has been the impress of the institutional and sociopolitical environments where social workers practice (Hasenfeld, 2010; Herman & Renz, 1998; Hopkins & Hyde, 2002; Kidneigh, 1950; Lewis, Packard, & Lewis, 2011; Lynch-Cerullo & Cooney, 2011; Patti, 2009; Sheffield, 1913; Spencer, 1959; Vinter, 1959; Weinbach, 2003). From the days of Charity Organization Societies and Community Chests to now, social workers have routinely served in organizations led by a professional manager or leader from a different discipline. Additionally, the scope and tenor of social work practice has been circumscribed by formal and informal sanctions via policy, politics, and overarching community standards and values. As a result of these trends, and regardless of the conceptual morass that comes with defining and distinguishing core concepts, the preponderance of professional literature on what we often call macro practice focuses on activities most would consider management, with far less emphasis on typical behaviors associated with leadership. This may not be a simple matter of imprecision in the language but may reflect a general confusion, apprehension, and even suspicion about the nature of leadership in the field (Brilliant, 2001). This article provides an overview of the status of leadership in social work, with an emphasis on unique functions and challenges leaders face in the field. Included in this review is a consideration of the concept of leadership as distinct from management, a historical review of the development of leadership as a specialty within social work, and a look at the reported effectiveness of various leadership models. Finally, it is argued that among the various leadership models to choose from, client-centered leadership is consistent with the goals and values that undergird the profession. Leadership and management The task of deciphering and delineating the differences between management and leadership has been discussed and debated for decades (see Zaleznik, 1977). Cut to the basics, management is CONTACT W. Patrick Sullivan wpsulliv@iupui.edu Indiana University School of Social Work, 902 W New York Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202. This is an invited article. © 2016 Council on Social Work Education JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 2016, VOL. 52, NO. S1, S51–S61 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1174644 commonly viewed as entailing the everyday activities, tasks, and routines that are necessary for an organization to remain viable and function smoothly (Brilliant, 2001; May, 2005; Plas & Lewis, 2001; Zaleznik, 1977). Summing up this perspective Zaleznik wrote, “It takes neither genius or heroism to be a manager, but rather a persistence, tough mindedness, hard work, intelligence, analytic ability, and perhaps most important, tolerance and good will” (p. 68). In contrast, descriptions and definitions of leadership frequently include such words as vision, inspiration, innovation, creativity, and power (Bargal & Schmid, 1989; Brilliant, 2001; Fisher, 2009; Kelso, 1927; Lawler, 2007; May, 2005; Rank & Hutchison, 2000; Zaleznik, 1977). In an attempt to sum up the multitude of attempts to define the term, Yukl (1989) states, “Leadership is defined broadly to include influence processes involving determination of the group’s or organization’s objectives, motivating task behavior in pursuit of these objectives, and influencing group maintenance and culture” (p. 5). So when looking at the two concepts as a whole, Brilliant (2001) argues, Managers may solve problems and keep organizations functioning, but leaders have special qualities. Leaders are creative, take risks, and promote innovation and organizational growth. Thus managers can be “good managers” without being leaders, but leaders go beyond this framework bringing entrepreneurial abilities that may be particularly needed at times in an organization’s history. (p. 326) Although these authors and others do a commendable and good job of drawing distinctions between these two concepts, some depictions of leadership emphasize the importance of nearly superhuman individual traits and suggest a level of concentration of power at the top of the organizational chart that can be disquieting, particularly in social work circles. Zaleznik (1977) recognized the potential danger here, noting that some accounts attach: almost mystical beliefs to what leadership is and assumes that only great people are worthy of the drama of power and politics … Such an expectation of leadership contrasts sharply with the mundane, practical, and yet important conception that leadership is really managing work that other people do. (p. 68) Leadership and social work So where is social work when it comes to leadership? What models best fit the mission and values of the profession? How is the preparation for leadership roles similar or dissimilar to other fields? Finally, how do the style and quality of leadership affect outcomes in human services if at all? There are no simple answers to these questions, for as Lawler (2007) argues “we are still in the position of having no generally accepted definition of leadership or what it might be within social work” (p. 133). This is not a new problem, for as early as 1927 Kelso suggested, Thinking over the whole requirement which is here labeled “leadership,” it is difficult perhaps to see that ability of such a high order is necessary in social work. This is because the new profession is in a state if metamorphosis out of efforts heretofore only philanthropic—principally the relief of suffering. In truth, remedial charity is only the repair-shop of real social work. There is in the process of materialization a science of public welfare. It calls for professional service of a high order. (p. 121) As the profession grew, the consequences of the failure to develop leaders from within social work were recognized. Specifically, the limitation of a model in which professional managers from outside the field managed the work of volunteers and even those who identified themselves as professional social workers soon became apparent, particularly in the trying times of the Great Depression (Atwater, 1950; Kidneigh, 1950; Street, 1940). Kidneigh (1950), who was an early advocate for a specific focus on social work administration, observed “Sometimes the experience of having nonsocial work executives thrust into social work executive responsibility has resulted in confusion, loss of efficiency, and thwarting of social work objectives” (p. 57). In this same time frame, Atwater (1950) observed that the dearth of social workers in positions of leadership in the years following the Great Depression was a function of the dominant position of women in the field and the concomitant prejudice against placing women in positions of power. S52 W. P. SULLIVAN By the late 1950s a growing interest in administration in social work was reflected in a specific curriculum study on the field conducted under the auspices of the Council on Social Work Education. As the project chair, Sue Spencer (1959), the director of the School of Social Work at the University of Tennessee, contended, Until or unless social workers have the kind of knowledge and skills necessary to provide administrative leadership and direction to the social service programs in which they practice, social work will be looked upon by the public either as a sub-professional service or merely a useful service operating as an aid to that of another profession. (p. 12) Shortly thereafter, the National Association of Social Work Research Section met in Chicago in late November, 1960 for a special Institute on Social Welfare Administration (Fanshel, 1962). Participants at this function recognized that administration in social work was neither well conceptualized nor well researched. If one simply looked at the evolution of leadership theory and models in the world of business and industry, it seems incomprehensible that social work was left on the sidelines (Spencer, 1959). As early as the 1920s Mary Parker Follett understood that effective organizations coalesced around a common purpose, and good leaders fostered an environment where the workforce was actively engaged in the identification and pursuit of valued goals (see Graham, 1996). Extending Follett’s work, Douglas McGregor’s (1957) The Human Side of Enterprise underscored the notion that when leaders attended to the total needs of workers by appreciating them as unique individuals and honored what motivated and inspired them, performance in the firm actually improved. In essence, the world of business and industry was drawing from the social sciences to enhance organizational cultures and ultimately gain a competitive advantage, and yet fields such as social work were failing to capitalize on their own and develop a unique brand of leadership. In contrast, texts on administration in social work up to this time focused on important but mundane matters such as procuring office furniture, record keeping, and maintaining healthy relationships with governing boards (Atwater, 1950; Street, 1940). As specialized human services programs and organizations expanded (consider the rise of community mental health beginning in the mid-1960s), more social workers moved into positions of leadership. For those slotted into these roles, new models and theories on leadership, mostly developed outside the field, had great appeal and utility (see Bargal & Schmid, 1989). Particularly attractive were models that underscored the value of widespread participation in the development of organizational goals and overall decision making. They weren’t alone. Even those in traditional business and industry had largely moved away from the “great man” and related trait-based theories of leadership, although interest in elements of these models certainly exists to this day (Peters & Waterman, 1982; Van Wart, 2003). In their stead, many popular models and treatises on management, even in mainstream literature, can easily be traced to the work of McGregor and other like thinkers from his era. To simplify, the quest is to attend to the specific needs of the workforce while motivating those same individuals to rally around key organizational goals and a compelling mission. For example, transformational leadership focuses attention on the relationship between the leader and staff, suggesting that organizations prosper when all their members work to maximize their potential (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Fisher, 2009; Lawler, 2007; May, 2005). The blueprint for effectiveness in this model is not a list of tangible activities but is often characterized by the four Is; idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, and inspirational motivation (Fisher, 2009). Thus, a transformational leader recognizes that staff behavior is not driven merely by standard rewards and punishment but is truly motivated by stimulating opportunities including a chance to work together toward a common good. Hence, there is less emphasis on formal authority and control and more on collective action and commitment to the values and vision of the organization. The onus of crafting and articulating this vision and translating this vision into actual behaviors that lead to goal accomplishment falls to leaders and followers alike. JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION S53 It is easy to see how elements of transformational leadership can appeal to social work. Social work is a mission-driven and values-based profession. Yet, the differences between human service organizations and what we may call standard business operations underscore that these special features and challenges may demand a style of leadership that builds, but is subtly distinct, from the transformational model. Hasenfeld (2010), for example, has articulated these key differences, noting among other items, that the technology employed, the reliance on professional staff, the primacy of client/staff relationships, the moral nature of the work, and institutional settings in which practice is conducted must be taken into account when understanding how human services organizations operate. Although some of what makes human services different falls into the category of internal operations and dynamics, the social context in which organizations are situated has always presented special challenges—and theses challenges are ever changing and cycle rapidly (Herman & Renz, 1998; Hopkins & Hyde, 2002; Kelso, 1927; Kidneigh, 1950; Lynch-Cerullo & Cooney, 2011; Rank & Hutchison, 2000; Sheffield, 1913; Van Wart, 2003). One constant in the life of a human service organization, and thus leadership, is the need to respond to the demands of stakeholders, some of whom hold disparate beliefs about the primary function of the agency. To illustrate, when dealing with people whom society shuns, the primary focus for some external actors may be to exclude and segregate, not to promote recovery and rehabilitation. Furthermore, the commitment to what is often viewed by the public as charity and philanthropy often waxes and wanes with the overall state of economy. Although these dilemmas have always confounded human service organizations, today, agencies deal with an increasingly diverse clientele with complex problems and needs and operate in the face of growing, and at times, unrealistic expectations (Hopkins & Hyde, 2002). Summing up these changes Lynch-Cerullo and Cooney (2011) state, The environment in which HSO’s [human service organizations] operate shifted dramatically over the past 20 years toward an intense focus on accountability, measurement, and the application of for-profit business practices to the nonprofit sector. The accountability pressures that emerged during the 1990’s were the result of a confluence of factors including the commercialization of and increased competition within the nonprofit arena, the popularity of total quality management, the increase in managed care penetration, greater focus on philanthropic accountability, and legislative and regulatory changes enacted by the federal government. It was further propelled within human services by the emergence of evidence-based social work practice, as well as advances in computer technology that facilitate easier data collection. (pp. 367–368) When confronted with all these internal and external forces, it becomes clear that effective leaders face a daunting juggling act (Edwards & Austin, 1991). Lawler (2007) argues that one response to these demands has been the rise of managerialism, which in essence is the attempt to modernize social services in the image of an efficiently run corporation or business. Hasenfeld (2015), among others, sees real danger in taking this direction: The underlying logic that guides these practices is maximization of resources, competitive advantage, efficiency and growth. The image of a successful organization is that of a well-oiled, highly productive and efficient machine. Managerial practices upholding this logic generate new forms of Taylorism. That is, work is structured to optimize productivity, increase the volume and speed by which clients are processed, reduce costs, and achieve prescriptive performance measures imposed on the workers by top managers. Client–worker relations become highly scripted by performance benchmarks and information processing algorithms. These are rationalized as “best practices” based on the latest research on effective interventions. The clients, in turn, become commodified: they are viewed as sources (or hindrances) of revenue, and are relabeled as consumers or customers. (p. 2) Not unlike the pleas of those who came before, Hasenfeld (2015) reasserts those things that make human services organizations unique and by extension argues that this uniqueness must reflect how work proceeds and leaders lead: The human services field is expected to embrace values that enhance human dignity, counter discrimination and social stigma, and offer services to reduce suffering and social inequality. To meet these values human service organizations are supposed to institute practices that offer clients needed services, honor and promote their social worth, treat them as subjects to work with rather than objects to be worked on, and ensure that the S54 W. P. SULLIVAN receipt of services is not made contingent on acceptance of self-blame. The organization is also expected to give voice to the oppressed and marginalized, and to advocate for stronger social rights through political action. To embed these practices in a supporting organizational structure, hierarchical relations are minimized, power is equally distributed among the staff, and the clients have a major voice or say in setting organizational policies. (p. 1) If someone conducted a simple analysis of the historical trends in the evolution of leadership theory, one development, as noted earlier, has recast the notion of the relationship between leaders and followers. The publication of the mammoth bestseller In Search of Excellence (Peters & Waterman (1982) unquestionably highlighted the importance of leadership to success but gave equal billing to the power of organizational cultures marked by a highly motivated workforce and where individual and group success were nearly one and the same. These issues are of prime importance in human services as well, particularly when one considers the nature of the work performed, levels of compensation offered to staff, the difficulties that come with working with involuntary clients, and so forth (see Fisher, 2009). In this context it is easy for those on the front lines to lose heart. It is not surprising that the ability to motivate is so regularly noted as an important facet of leadership in human services and that effective leadership is seen as an important factor in enhancing and maintaining job satisfaction (Elpers & Westhuis, 2008; Fisher, 2009; Lawler, 2007; May, 2005). Although the importance of a motivated and satisfied workforce is indisputable, the ultimate assessment of the effectiveness of any organization is based on actual outcomes—and in the case of human services—client outcomes. Client-centered leadership Measuring the true impact of leadership on outcomes is difficult in all settings (Hiller, DeChurch, Murase, & Doty, 2011), and in the human services, research on this relationship is scant at best (Poertner, 2006). Regardless of the mission of any organization, work gets done through people, and it is for this reason that so muc …
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool’s honor code & terms of service.
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you
Use our paper writing service to score better and meet your deadlines.
Order Now