|
The Riddle of Good Leadership
Article Excerpt: The Riddle of Good Leadership
by Barry Nazar, DPA
Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt from an article from the current (Spring 2011) issue of THE NEW SOCIAL WORKER. Read the full article at:
It is inevitable that social workers will be pressed into leadership roles. They get appointed to positions of responsibility. They initiate community projects. They coordinate teams of stakeholders on behalf of clients.
Leadership is not usually an explicit part of the social work curriculum, but many of the skills transfer aptly to leadership roles. A basic understanding of the nature of leadership can provide the presence of mind to bring these skills into play.
Organizations and groups require a leader. It’s almost as certain as a law of physics. Whether the group is a formal organization or an informal social group, it must have a leader. Formal organizations have this built into their structure. Informal groups will establish a leader nevertheless, even in the absence of a pre-established structure. If they fail to do so, the group usually falls apart. And that is a major clue to the functional role for a group leader—to guide the processes that allow a collection of individuals to operate as a coherent group.
There are many misconceptions about what is essential to effective leadership. Most misperceptions derive from observing the “trappings” of leadership. For example, some view it as a matter of wielding authority. That is, the exercise of authority is seen as the means to bring about cohesiveness. Whether used harshly or softly, however, this approach amounts to despotism. A harsh example is the prerogative of Roman generals to “decimate” their armies. If the army performed poorly, the soldiers were lined up, counted off by tens, and every tenth man was killed. A soft example is to establish rules or cultural protocols that stifle the expression of objections. Whether hard or soft, authoritarian approaches ultimately result in diminished capacity.
Some see leadership as a matter of creativity or intellectual competence. That is, the leader provides a vision or the inspired expression of mission that others will just naturally choose to follow, or at least restrain their own desires in favor of the leader’s objectives. This is a “leader knows best” model and eventually falls short because it simply “ain’t so.” No one always knows best. And, to the extent that organization members operate under the belief that the leader must have all the answers, that organization is diminished in capacity. You can spot this when organization members seem paralyzed from action until they hear what the leader determines about the situation. There is great loss of efficiency and effectiveness, because people are “sitting on their hands,” or worse, “shutting down their minds.”
A similar misconception is that leadership arises from charismatic personality and popularity, if not outright celebrity. Everyone wants to be associated with the favorable image of the leader, so they act obligingly in ways that support a cohesive group. There is a partial truth in this. To the extent that this approach to leadership includes the formation of friendships, where friendship is the understanding that people will act in each other’s best interest, this works. But to the extent that it rests upon upholding the leader’s image, organizations become cult-like, prone to groupthink, and not very adaptable to changing circumstances.
The crux of the leadership issue is resolving a fundamental dilemma: individual vs. group. An organization is at once a collection of individuals, but also a transcendent entity. The group is more than the sum of its parts. One of the seminal scholars of management, Chester Barnard, put forth an insightful definition of organizational efficiency. He stated [paraphrased], efficiency is the extent to which the purposes of the organization and the purposes of the members overlap. Although efficiency isn’t the sole objective of leadership, this definition goes to the core issue of leadership—that is, resolving the individual vs. group dilemma.
Read the rest of this article at:
Articles from the Spring 2011 issue of THE NEW SOCIAL WORKER include:
…and more!
**************************************
Affirmative Action: Proposition 209
by Erica A. Gonzalez, Kimberly Kem, Gisela Obieta, Lillian Do, and Natalia Guevar
California State University Long Beach
Proposition 209 passed in the state of California in November 1996 in hopes to put an end to state discrimination and preferential treatment based on sex, race, color, and national origin in education, public employment, and contracting (Cal. Const. art. I, § 31). It intended to provide equality among all races and sexes; however, Proposition 209 spawned some unintended consequences to the people of the United States of America.
For one, Proposition 209 has had a negative impact on underrepresented minorities in the University of California (UC) systems (Wang, 2008). In fact, the overall applications, admissions, enrollment, and graduation rates in the UC system has declined ever since the passage of Proposition 209 (University of California, 2003). As a result of its passage, the UC systems have become more selective in nature and have provided a clear indication of Proposition 209’s adverse and unpleasant impact on underrepresented minorities in California’s public higher education system. Some examples of supplemental admissions criteria, which only served as means for limiting access, included “SAT scores, eligibility index scores (a formulaic score based on GPA and SAT I or ACT score), special talents, and socioeconomic and educational disadvantages” (Rendon, Novack, & Dowell, 2004, p. 228). This stricter selective process resulted in higher numbers of Latino and African American students being denied admission, indicating a retreat from the UC system’s longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion (Wang, 2008). An argument can be made that underrepresented students, especially the African American and Latino populations, might be facing perhaps one of the most complicated times gaining admission into both UC and CSU institutions than at any other time in the history of the California (Rendon, Novack & Dowell, 2004).
A second unintended consequence to the passage of Proposition 209 was that the proportion of underrepresented minorities admitted and enrolled has declined (Wang, 2008). A huge indicator of this adverse impact is the continuous growth of the gap between the percentages of underrepresented minorities who graduated from high school and those who are admitted as UC freshmen. Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, the gap between underrepresented minorities as a percentage of California high school graduates and as a percentage of new UC freshmen was widening after narrowing in the 1980s (Wang, 2008). In 2005, after the passage of Proposition 209, underrepresented minorities constituted 44.8% of all California high school graduates, but only 19.8% of all newly admitted UC freshmen for 2006, a difference of 25% (Su, 2006). Although this growing gap could also be attributed to the changing demographics and rapidly increasing minority student population in California elementary and secondary schools (California Department of Education, 2007), the decline in underrepresented minorities as UC freshmen could also be because of a decline in underrepresented minorities' applications (Wang, 2008).
Lastly, the persistence and graduation rates of underrepresented minorities in the UC system have not improved (Wang, 2008). Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, the persistence and graduation rates of underrepresented minorities in the UC system were already improving (University of California, 2003), so any improvement in these rates after its passage could just have been a continuation of its progress. In addition, actual available data shows that persistence and graduation rates have actually declined for certain underrepresented minority groups after the passage of Proposition 209. For instance, persistence rate for African American freshmen admitted to the UC in 1998 was 83.1%, but declined over the next two years to 82.9% and 81.7% (University of California, 2003).
Undeniably, more than a decade after its passage, underrepresented minorities and women continue to face tremendous difficulties and barriers to employment, education, and contracting (Hadley, 2005) under Proposition 209. Further, the role of race and the benefits of diversity in higher institutions of learning will continue to create debates in the future. As more states consider making legislative changes to abolish affirmative action policies favoring ethnic minorities, the impact of Proposition 209 will serve as a useful guide (Wang, 2008). It is hoped that further considerations will be made in the future, creating a more balanced and just system to emerge.
References
California Civil Rights Initiative, art. I, § 31.
California Department of Education. (2007). Enrollment by Ethnicity, 1981-1982 through 2001-2002. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/enreth.asp.
Hadley, E. (2005). Did the sky really fall? Ten years after California’s Proposition 209. Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, 20(1), 103-138.
Rendon, L., Novack, V., & Dowell, D. (2005). Testing race-neutral admissions models: Lessons from California State University-Long Beach. The Review of Higher Education, 28(2), 221-243.
University of California. (2003). Undergraduate Access to the University of California after the Elimination of Race-Conscious Policies. Retrieved from http://www.ucop.edu/sas/puhlish/aa_final2.pdf
Su, E. Y. (2006). UC ethnic shift revives Proposition 209. The San Diego Union Tribute. Retrieved from http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061127/news_ln27prop209.html.
Wang, I. (2008). Finding a silver lining: The positive impact of looking beyond race amidst the negative effects of Proposition 209. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 1, 149-170.
This article is also featured on our Web site at:
**************************************
Number of Children in Foster Care Decreases, Critical Needs Still Unmet
Washington D.C. – May is National Foster Care Month, a time designated by the National Foster Care Month Partnership to shine a public light on the plight of children and youth in foster care. This year, despite a marked decrease in the total number of children in foster care – from more than a half million in 2007 to 463,000 at the end of 2008 – serious issues remain, especially for older youth in care. The Foster Care Month Partnership, comprised of nearly 20 child welfare organizations around the country, calls on all Americans to help make a difference in the life of at least one young person in foster care.
A recently released study by Chapin Hall revealed that youth who reach the age of majority –age 18 in most states – and exit the system, experience futures full of hardship: More than one in five will become homeless after age 18; just 58 percent will graduate high school by age 19 (compared to 87 percent nationally); fewer than 3 percent will earn a college degree by age 25 (compared to 28 percent nationally); and one in four will be incarcerated within two years of leaving the system.
Over the last decade, the number of young people who “age out” of foster care has risen steadily – from 19,000 in 1999 to an all-time high of nearly 30,000 in 2008. On their own, without the safety net of a family or the education they need to compete in the workplace, these young adults must navigate a weakened economy offering fewer jobs and less support for vital services such as housing.
New federal legislation addresses some of the needs of this population. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, signed into law in October 2008, includes a state option to continue providing Title IV-E reimbursable foster care, adoption, or guardianship assistance payments to children after the age of 18. It also extends eligibility for independent living services to older youth, with certain requirements.
Everyday citizens can help to change a lifetime for a child or youth in foster care by becoming foster or adoptive parents; serving as relative caregivers, mentors, advocates, or volunteers; helping to educate federal and state public policy leaders on the issues facing children and families; urging state legislators to implement all aspects of the Fostering Connections Act; and encouraging employers/employees to volunteer their time as professional coaches and role models for foster youth or young families with children in foster care.
Visit www.fostercaremonth.org to find out more about the many ways to get involved and make a lasting difference for America’s children.
The National Foster Care Month Partnership consists of the following national organizations:
American Public Human Services Association/National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators; Annie E. Casey Foundation/Casey Family Services; Black Administrators in Child Welfare; Casey Family Programs; Children’s Rights; Child Welfare League of America; Foster Care Alumni of America; FosterClub; Foster Family-Based Treatment Association; Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative; National Association of Social Workers; National Association of State Foster Care Managers; National CASA; National Foster Care Coalition; National Foster Parent Association; Orphan Foundation of America; Voices for America’s Children
**************************************
New flexibility for states to improve Medicaid and implement innovative practices
New rules will make Medicaid more flexible and efficient, helping states provide better care and lower costs
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently announced four initiatives to give states more flexibility to adopt innovative new practices and provide better, more coordinated care for people with Medicaid and Medicare while helping reduce costs for states and families. The initiatives support the Obama administration’s work to make Medicaid more flexible and efficient and to address long-term cost growth. Several of the announcements also help implement provisions of the Affordable Care Act. HHS announced:
-
Fifteen states will receive federal funding to develop better ways to coordinate care for people with Medicare and Medicaid coverage, also known as dual eligibles, who often have complex and costly health care needs.
-
All states will receive increased flexibility to provide home- and community-based services for more people living with disabilities.
-
All states are eligible to receive more money to develop simpler and more efficient information technology (IT) systems to modernize Medicaid enrollment.
-
A proposal by the state of New Jersey for flexibility to expand health coverage for nearly 70,000 low-income residents has been approved.
“Medicaid programs provide health coverage for millions of low-income Americans who otherwise would lack access to health care,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “With these new resources and flexibilities, states will have new options to make their Medicaid programs work better for the people they serve, while helping lower their costs.”
|
