What is participative leadership?
Participative Decision Making Definition: In the Participative Leadership Style, the leader encourages his subordinates to contribute their ideas or opinion in the group situations and share responsibility in them. There are four major types of decision-making style that a leader adopts to get the group goals accomplished. Participatory Decision-Making: Introduction Participatory Decision Making is a creative process to give ownership of decisions to the whole group, finding effective options that everyone can live with. One form of this is consensus, which these pages look at further. About participatory decision-making A common form of participatory decision making is called consensus.
While participative leadership comes in several flavors, there is a common pattern that is present in most of these types:. There are four types of participative decision-making with democratic or participative leadership being only one of them. All of these styles are somewhat similar and have similar advantages and disadavantages. They are. Collective decision-making is a form of leadership style where all decisions are taken by the group, and the responsibility for these decisions are also entirely on the group.
One of the characteristics of collective leadership is that during the decision-making process the group must develop clear lines of authority that define the responsibilities of each member. Democratic or participative leadership encourages participation of all members, but the final decision is taken by the leader. Once the decision is taken, the leader has to communicate it back to the group and resolve possible objections if any. Autocratic participative decision-making implies that while possible solutions are brainstormed collectively, the responsibility of taking the final decision is still on the leader alone.
Autocratic leadership style allows the organization to benefit from the collective input provided by all employees while making decisions reasonably fast. Democratic and autocratic styles of participative leadership may seem to be very much alike, but the difference is that while autocratic leadership is more goal oriented, i. The advantage of autocratic decision-making how to get umlauts in microsoft word democratic is that the results are obtained much faster.
Consensus decision-making is a leadership style where the leader gives up control and responsibility of decision-making, leaving it entirely to the group. In other words, the decision has to be modified to remove any objectionable features so that the minority can agree with it. Participative leadership model is very much how to apply concrete overlay vogue these days with many supporters promoting its advantages:.
Different approaches may be more what is participative decision- making for specific situations. You may be interested in this leadership test. Participative leadership, also known as democratic leadership, is one of the four participative decision-making styles where employers invite employees to take a part in organizational decision-making. While this leadership style is not as common in the corporate world, some professions require this type of attitude, e.
What makes you the way you are? Includes professional follow-up by a CBT therapist. Click here to get started.
Pros and Cons of Participative Leadership. Participative leadership, also known as democratic leadership, is one of the four participative decision-making styles where employers invite employees to take a part in organizational decision-making. While this leadership style is not as common in the corporate world, some professions require this type of attitude, e.g., social workers, . Feb 19, · The methodology behind being a participative leader is simple. Rather than employing a top-down approach to managing a team, everyone works together for the decision-making process and address company issues, sometimes employing an internal vote to address problems or mybajaguide.com: Western Governors University. Jun 01, · Participative ethical decision making is a model for the systematic assessment and resolution of ethical dilemmas It is a synthesis of concepts that are essential to health care professionals: ethics, communication, negotiation, autonomy and respect for people, professional standards and care that is culturally and contextually based.
Nurse practitioners are often challenged by ethical dilemmas that appear to have opposing but equally valid solutions. The manner in which these dilemmas are resolved affects the therapeutic relationship between patient and provider. The ability to find solutions that recognize the opinions of all involved parties leads to more favorable results than an arbitrary or one-sided plan of care. This article presents a model for shared participative decision making using ethical concepts.
This approach differs from current discussions about ethics, which often reflect the nurse in a secondary or dependent role. This model recognizes the leadership role of the nurse practitioner. Nurse practitioners care for diverse patient populations, many of whom may have multiple health problems. NPs are frequently faced with ethical dilemmas that must be resolved to foster therapeutic relationships. Dialogue and solutions must recognize the unique viewpoints of all parties involved, conserve time and resources, and ensure full participation by the patient.
Often in the primary care setting, the primary care provider is the principle source of assistance and information. NPs provide leadership, accountability and sensitivity as they assist patients to fully participate in making decisions about their own health care. Current nursing resources for ethical decision making are primarily directed toward nurses in secondary and dependent roles; little is written specifically to guide NPs, who have a more autonomous scope of practice.
In addition, the ethical dilemmas addressed in the health care literature are often associated with dramatic issues, such as end-of-life decision making. Ethical dilemmas in primary care are seldom so dramatic. They are, to a great degree, woven into the fabric of normative everyday health care. Often, in fact, the ethical dimensions of a situation are not recognized or are overridden by a paternalistic approach to patient care.
Knowledgeable preparation is necessary to find equitable and just solutions. What if an NP considers surgery necessary, but the patient disagrees and refuses? The model, which Mary Calabro, NP, developed in , provides a guide to address ethical dilemmas in an equitable manner. A brief overview of ethical theory and principles provides background for how the PEDM Model developed.
An ethical dilemma occurs when rival or opposing solutions to an ethical question occur — when both solutions are valid and grounded in two or more strongly supported ethical points of view. A decision or action that may be more desirable from one point of view is undesirable from the other and, if the alternate decision or action is chosen, the results will still only be desirable from one viewpoint.
Solving an ethical dilemma requires rational analysis of the problem, thoughtful consideration of all valid approaches, patient participation and a decision that can be justified by ethical theory or grounded in a body of rules and principles Table 1.
Ethical theories are systems of related concepts or principles used as frameworks, perspectives and supports for considering and solving ethical dilemmas. These theories differ according to where the philosophical emphasis for decision making is placed, i. Deontological theories stress individual rights.
An action is morally right or wrong according to a set of universal moral precepts that consider the person and his or her natural or bestowed rights of primary importance. This approach strongly supports consideration of individual rights, even when those rights may, for example, slow the implementation of universal public policy, restrict research, hinder application of new technologies, or result in an imbalance of the distribution of limited resources.
Utilitarian theories, on the other hand, emphasize the morality of an ethical decision, grounded in the concept of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number. A utilitarian approach is the basis for most public health policies that subsume individual choice to the provision of maximum benefits for the society at large.
Examples are the requirement of childhood vaccinations regardless of personal opinions, or adding substances to public food or water supplies fluoride, folic acid, etc to provide maximum possible protection to the larger population. Context-based ethics recognize the importance of the unique characteristics of a situation. No single philosophical approach is the absolute justification for every instance of ethical decision making. In fact, adhering to one or another of these approaches in a dogmatic or rigid manner can create additional conflict.
Understanding the context in which an ethical dilemma arises and choosing an appropriate philosophical and moral justification is a complex process. Each dilemma requires assessment of the ethical principles involved in that situation.
Depending on the ethics resource, the specific list of ethical principles may differ slightly. But all have at least some of the principles identified in Table 1. Within what appears to be a confusing or bewildering array of approaches to ethical dilemmas, how can NPs be expected to have the wisdom and knowledge to solve an ethical dilemma? Consider these conflicts:. Most ethical dilemmas revolve around several principles and involve people with strong philosophical and moral reasoning that supports rival conclusions.
Health professionals also have personal perceptions of professional standards that may dictate limits and imperatives of behavior. Resolution of these conflicts requires careful assessment and balancing of alternatives. This process is time-consuming and NPs seldom have enough time for long, lengthy searches for solutions. Participative ethical decision making is a model for the systematic assessment and resolution of ethical dilemmas.
It is both practice- and theory-based. A year-old mother brings her 3-year-old daughter to the primary care clinic for a sore throat.
The child has a 6-month history of loud snoring with documented sleep apnea, persistent tonsilar enlargement and recurrent pharyngitis. The mother brought her child to an ENT surgeon 3 weeks ago as the result of a referral, but missed a previous appointment with the specialist. She also did not bring the child to a rescheduled clinic appointment. Now, the girl presents with another sore throat. The mother is adamantly against the surgery.
Step 1: Is there a problem with no solution that is completely satisfactory to all parties? Step 2: Who is involved, what is the issue or problem, and when does a decision need to be made?
Mother, child and possibly the community are involved. The conflict is essentially one of who has the right to make decisions for a minor child.
The NP brings a wealth of professional knowledge to the dilemma and knows that sleep apnea is dangerous beneficence, maleificence. Advocacy is another principle to consider, especially in the care of a dependent minor.
On the other hand, it is important to maintain a supportive, intact, caring family for the child. Clearly, the mother and grandmother need more information, support and a chance to decide. She did bring her back to the clinic beneficence and fidelity and she wants to protect her daughter from the danger of surgery nonmaleficence , which she considers her responsibility. However, the mother disagrees with the solution autonomy.
The mother is adhering to her culture by relying on a maternal authority figure; her culture may also foster a distrust of health care providers. Fortunately, the grandmother and mother are able to meet with the NP, who provides information about the risks of surgery as well as the risk of apnea. She explains that the primary goal of all involved is to protect the child from harm. The mother and grandmother express their reservations based on a previous experience with surgery.
Because of this exchange, the NP realizes that while all parties have the same goal, the perspective and fears of the mother and grandmother must be addressed.
Step 6: Is there an ethical framework that both parties could find acceptable: deontological, utilitarian or contextual? Both parties are approaching the dilemma from a rights-based and a consequence-based framework: the right to a healthy life and prevention of post-surgical complications with consideration of the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence and fidelity.
This was not a highly complicated ethical dilemma, but it was essential to the health of the child and family to seek an acceptable resolution. The consequences of not recognizing all the parameters of this dilemma could have had any number of dire results.
For instance, sensing neglect of her concerns, the mother could have left with the child and never returned. Or, the NP could have coerced the mother into agreement and thereafter estranged the mother because threats and coercion had broken the bond of trust.
Or, the relationship and trust between mother and grandmother could have been damaged if the mother were forced to accede to medical directives without involving the grandmother in the decision-making process.
Nurse practitioners are in a unique position in the health care arena because they focus on building trusting relationships with patients. Current literature about ethical dilemmas too often casts the nurse in a secondary or dependent role and is not specific to NP scope of practice. We have used the model to reach common ground on immunization, discipline and compliance. The PEDM Model incorporates concepts essential to primary care, such as communication, negotiation, autonomy and respect for people, rights, professional standards, ethical principles, and culturally and context-based care.
Applying the PEDM Model will increase proficiency in ethical decision making, whether the conflict is between patient and professional, between peers or between NPs and their administrations. The model has the potential to reduce the time spent searching for possible solutions in an unsystematic way, reduce conflict and build trust between people who hold valid but opposing ethical viewpoints.
Leininger M. Transcultural Nursing: Concepts, Theories, and Practices. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; Ethical Dilemmas and Nursing Practice.
Norwalk, Conn. American Medical Association. Principles of Medical Ethics, American Nurses Association. Code for Nurses, Washington, D. Ethical Principles, Fry S. Ethics in Nursing Practice. Geneva, Switzerland: International Council of Nurses; Husted G, Husted J. Ethical Decision Making in Nursing. St Louis: Mosby;