Empowering Toward Service
Leader will be faced to two groups, admirers and detractors. Admirers will praise the leader for being so inclusive, for involving as many people as possible in the institution in organizational governance while detractors will criticize the individual based on what they would label indecisiveness, stating that they wished she would just make decisions quickly and do her job, leaving them to do theirs.
But, what does power mean? How it is distributed and exercised within the servant-led organization, and how it relates to “trust” and “consensus,” two leader-as-servant essentials. Let’s see…
THE NATURE OF POWER
Greenleaf delineates three traditional types of power:
1. coercive, (the power of threat)
2. manipulative, (guides and influences the follower by taking advantage of incomplete understanding or deception) and
(is power-with and helps the follower arrive at a sense of rightness about a decision by creating understanding leading to intuitive commitment and it is the most effective when it is the power of consensus, with consensus being a method of utilizing persuasive power in groups.)
Covey, in Principle-Centered Leadership, defines power as coercive, utilitarian, or principle-centered. He describes coercive power much as Greenleaf does, but sees utility power as that which provides the follower with some desired benefit—the power of useful exchange. Principle-centered power, according to Covey, is power based on trust that the leader is sincerely trying to accomplish mutually desirable goals and is doing it in an admirable and honorable way
Organizational life involves constant differences such as disputes about goals and institutional direction, or lack of understanding of how goals and directions can help organizational members fulfill personal desires. the approach of each individual initially comes to the organization because it can help achieve individual desires. The integration process is important to establish conformity between individual desires and organizational goals.
Follet argues that to find the best solution, all those involved must be objective and free to look for it. After the solution is recognized, everyone then carries out the power of its function to enforce the solution and a broad review of the problem and involvement in the solution, is a form of ownership of each.
THE VALUE OF DIVERSITY
When we are struggling with problems on campus. In many cases, often the suggestions made by members become mutually agreed upon solutions, and when it involves a somewhat greater level of risk, it clearly produces better results if successful.
Partly because of input and partly on experiential learning and this can be used as a process of appreciating large differences in the way people think and process information — basic. Some thinkers are very sequential, able to compile facts logically and systematically. If there is an important part of the data missing, they recognize it.
Cultural diversity introduces many of the same benefits to solving a problem. That various cultures have very useful perspectives and unique effective ways to resolve conflicts. This is a conflict. This becomes very important because our institutions are getting better and more diverse and more involved in global education. This is very important because our institutions are more diverse and more involved in global education.
POWER AS A COLLECTIVE ENDEAVOR
The principle of power-with is so central to syncretic leadership that a service-centered leader cannot be fully successful without it. Power will always be misused, but its misuse can be moderated by spreading it out across the organization. It is as dangerous when held exclusively by an employee association as by a president and, as Follett suggested, the organization must be designed in such a way that power follows function.
There is not a balance of power within much of higher education, and the influences of the faculty research agenda and of media-driven “best institution” rating systems have overwhelmed our underrepresented voices. After reestablishing undergraduate teaching and learning as a first priority in higher education, a second critical responsibility of the twentyfirst century leader must be to reestablish a balance of power that enables this realignment to occur.
RE-EMPOWERING THE PRESIDENCY
Two factors stand as what often seem immovable barriers to organizational change in the academy: an imbalance of power in favor of the faculty, and entrenched organizational processes that impede service-centered decision making.
Leaders often have been equally cloistered, but it is part of their role to get in touch with that reality and insure that the institution responds to it and to the needs of other interest groups who must exercise their power through the presidency.
The responsibility to grant and protect this power lies with institutional governing boards, and this chapter is as much for them as it is for administrative leaders. Boards must grant and protect the authority and power to presidents to accomplish four ends:
1. To reestablish the primacy of undergraduate teaching and learning.
2. To forge an undergraduate curriculum that adequately prepares students for the global realities of the twenty-first century.
3. To represent the interests of students and the general public from a power position equal to any other within the institution.
4. To be the final voice in critical decisions affecting the future of the institution
Boards commit to represent the best interests of the college or university. Leaders commit to use their power to further the board’s policy decisions. Faculty commit to provide the best they can by way of instructional excellence and worthwhile research and scholarship.
BERITA LENGKAP DI HALAMAN BERIKUTNYA