Sociology Discussion Responses Response to Post #1

Sociology Discussion Responses Response to Post #1 I agree entirely with your explanation of the way that the two leadership approaches you discussed operate. However, I am not so sure that I would necessarily consider situational leadership and transformational leadership to be mutually exclusive or limiting. Instead of choosing between one and the other, I might consider them both as contributing simultaneously to effective leadership within social service organizations.

In my opinion and experience, many social services professionals are highly motivated by philosophical idealism and a desire to contribute positively to various causes. Even among those not primarily motivated this way, most of them are partially motivated by the types of causes that lend themselves to transformational leadership. At the same time, situational leadership would seem to be essential within social services organizations, and it would seem that would apply equally whether there was a simultaneous emphasis on transformation-based employee motivation.

I would also agree with characterization of some of the barriers encountered during any substantial change in operational methodology. You described a process that I would consider to be working for "buy-in" at all levels of the organization. The incorporation of newer technologies is a perfect example of a typical change-management issue. Response to Post #2 As I suggested in my prior response, I agree completely that there is a very significant transformation-based motivation among many social services professionals.

However, in addition to the fact that transformational leadership can co-exist effectively within a situational leadership operational approach, I would like to suggest another reason why I might not want to focus exclusively on transformation-based motivation. Specifically, classic transformational leadership emphasizes, as the name says, transforming mindsets. Transformational leadership probably works best within groups that leadership wants to change or transform, typically from a less conscious and aware perspective about certain issues to a more conscious and aware perspective about those issues.

There is a shorter-term excitement among relatively new converts to a philosophical perspective during which transformational leadership is most effective; but it is likely less effective (largely because it is unnecessary) among longer-term members of the organization or field. To an experienced long-term employee, there may be no more transformation possible, although motivation by long-term established commitment is obviously highly desirable. Response to Post #3 I have to admit that I am somewhat confused by your choice of servant leadership in the law enforcement field.

I had always understood law enforcement organizations to maintain very strict hierarchical, directive, and (in the field) situational leadership. That would certainly be true of the many paramilitary-type of police training in many agencies. In fact, of all the different leadership styles you identified, I might have expected servant leadership to be among the least likely choice.

On the other hand, I completely agree that some of the same motivations within the servant leadership style are consistent with the skills and sensibilities of effective responses to domestic violence (and many other) law enforcement/social services functions in the field. However, when it comes to leadership models, I would imagine that servant leadership would make it difficult to maintain reliable command and control. Paramilitary leadership may be excessively rigid within civilian society, but servant leadership might be too much of a swing in the opposite direction.

Response to Post #4 In my opinion, to rely heavily on the Leadership Development Model (LDM) might not be such a good idea, at least not without adjusting it a little to better fit social services such as homeless relief efforts.

That is primarily true as far as the competency-based elements of the LDM, simply because: (1) the decision to pursue a career in social services is more likely to be a function of philosophical perspective and community commitment than it is a function of attributes; and (2) to whatever extent specific personal attributes are important in the field, it would seem that they would be more in the areas of motivation and personality and much less in the areas of general or crystallized cognitive abilities.

In principle, I agree with you that the most determinative factors in the decision to pursue social services careers such as working wit the homeless reflect the combination of a general socially conscious, concerned personality and an acquired appreciation for the importance of specific human causes. Moreover, that characterization is probably much more broadly applicable to other causes, such as environmental or animal conservation.

Whereas the philosophical focus might reflect different prior experiences and exposures to different issues and sensibilities, all of these professionals probably share very similar motivation in terms of their caring personalities. Response to Post #5 I agree with everything you said about the importance of providing better treatment and other resources for the mentally ill. On the matter of leadership, I would have to reiterate much of what I said in connection with homeless services. Specifically, as you explain very well, transformational leadership emphasizes change above all else.

That is a powerful motivator but it probably works much better with new converts than it does with more seasoned professionals who are already committed to the cause. In fact, among more experienced social services professionals, I might want to incorporate elements of transactional leadership, such as in the form of earned levels of authority or autonomy. Transactional motivation would not be the right choice for recruitment or for new entrants into the profession but it might be perfectly appropriate and.