Running head: Discussion Team Management 1
Discussion Team Management 2
Leadership Paradox and Inter-team Relations
A. The leadership paradox refers to a situation in which the leader creates an environment where the team they lead can work without them, yet again the team cannot work without the leader (Fletcher, 2004). The leadership paradox arises when the leader is able to develop an effective team that can work independently and yet deliver on the set objectives. The leader has to ensure that they maintain their strategies although it may appear that they are not required (Bennis, 2004). The leadership paradox could be a sign of success in team management but the leader should be keen and ensure that the successful strategies are maintained for the long term.
B. Participative management entails when the leader involves the members of the team that they lead in all the decisions that they make (Kim, 2002). The main strategy for ensuring that participative management succeeds is for the leader to share their leadership vision, goals and direction. The leaders should also devise trusting the individual team members as a strategy for encouraging the participation of all people in the team (Rainey, 2009). The leader should ensure that he/she interacts with the members of their team to enable them understand the progress that the team could be making. Responding to all issues of concern in the team will also encourage the success of participative leadership.
C. Group bias emerges when the members of a specific team become too supportive of their team to such levels that they lose the objectivity of the issues that they could be seeking to address in an inter-group conflict (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2014). The bias can grow to be pronounced to such levels that the individual members begin arguing against the racial, demographic, religious or ethnicity of some of the people involved in the conflict (Hewstone, Rubin & Willis, 2002). Unless group bias is addressed, it can jeopardize the quest for the team to meet its goals and objectives. The involved organization may fail to meet its growth and performance projections if the inter-group bias is not addressed at the earliest point after its emergence.
References
Bennis, W. (2004). Leadership paradox. CIO insight, 44, 35-36.
Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change. The leadership quarterly, 15(5), 647-661.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2014). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Psychology Press.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual review of psychology, 53(1), 575-604.
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership. Public administration review, 62(2), 231-241.
Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. John Wiley & Sons