𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐓𝐘 𝐅𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐄𝐥 𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫 (𝐢𝐢) 𝟐𝟕 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐬𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝟏𝟔. 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐒𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞

Participating Leadership Style

1. Introduction

Participating leadership style is one of the four leadership styles identified in the Situational Leadership Theory developed by Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). This approach emphasizes the role of follower readiness and maturity in determining leadership behavior. Within this framework, the participating leadership style is particularly effective when team members possess the competence to complete tasks but lack confidence or motivation.

2. Theoretical Foundation: Situational Leadership Theory

According to Hersey and Blanchard’s model, leadership effectiveness depends on a leader’s ability to adapt their style to the maturity level of followers. The four leadership styles identified are:

  • Telling (S1)

  • Selling (S2)

  • Participating (S3)

  • Delegating (S4)

The Participating (S3) style is characterized by high relationship behavior and low task behavior. Here, leaders focus on fostering collaboration, shared decision-making, and mutual trust, while reducing direct supervision of task-related activities (Northouse, 2021).

3. Characteristics of Participating Leadership

  • Shared Decision-Making: Leaders and followers work collaboratively to solve problems and make decisions.

  • Supportive Behavior: The leader acts as a facilitator rather than a director, encouraging autonomy.

  • Empowerment: Followers are empowered to take initiative and ownership of their roles (Lussier & Achua, 2015).

  • Open Communication: Leaders prioritize interpersonal relationships, active listening, and constructive feedback (Goleman, 2000).

4. Application in Educational Leadership

In the context of educational leadership, the participating style is particularly effective in schools with professional teaching staff who are skilled but may require encouragement and support to fully engage. Examples include:

  • Teacher Leadership: Encouraging teachers to lead school improvement initiatives.

  • Collaborative Curriculum Planning: Involving staff in curriculum design or pedagogical reform.

  • School-Based Decision Making (SBDM): A shared governance model where leadership is distributed (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006).

Participative leadership aligns with transformational and distributed leadership models that are gaining prominence in contemporary education systems (Spillane, 2006).

5. Strengths of Participating Leadership

  • Enhances Motivation: By involving staff in decisions, this style increases ownership and intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

  • Builds Trust and Morale: Fosters stronger interpersonal relationships within teams (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).

  • Encourages Innovation: Teachers and staff are more likely to propose creative solutions when they feel valued.

6. Limitations and Challenges

  • Time-Consuming: Shared decision-making processes may slow down decision-making (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

  • Requires Competent Staff: This style assumes that staff have the expertise and commitment to participate meaningfully.

  • Potential for Role Confusion: Ambiguity in leadership roles can emerge if boundaries are not clearly established.

7. Empirical Evidence

Research supports the effectiveness of participative leadership in educational settings. For instance, a study by Nguni, Sleegers, and Denessen (2006) found that participative and transformational leadership positively correlated with teacher job satisfaction and commitment in Tanzanian secondary schools.

Additionally, Bush and Glover (2014) argue that participative leadership fosters professional learning communities (PLCs) and encourages teacher collaboration, which are crucial for school improvement.

8. Conclusion

The Participating Leadership Style represents a relationship-oriented and collaborative approach that aligns well with modern educational values, such as inclusivity, empowerment, and shared responsibility. It is especially effective in environments with competent staff who benefit more from guidance and affirmation than direct control. However, it also requires a mature organizational culture, clear communication structures, and time investment to be sustainable and effective.

References

  • Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know? School Leadership & Management, 34(5), 553–571.

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

  • Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78–90.

  • Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. Prentice-Hall.

  • Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2013). Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

  • Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The Leadership Challenge (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

  • Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227.

  • Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2015). Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.

  • Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145–177.

  • Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and Practice (9th ed.). Sage Publications.

  • Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed Leadership. Jossey-Bass.