Discuss the use of participative leadership in the following criminal justice leadership positions:
Examine the suitability of these positions—judges, prosecutors, victim advocates, and prison administrators—for participative leadership strategies. Compare the strengths and weaknesses of each position.
How can individuals in each of the administrative positions listed above delegate responsibility to the employees working under them?
Which of these positions is best suited for autocratic strategies? Why?
Identify another area within criminal justice that is not listed above where participative leadership could be used.
use references cite sources
This form of leadership is unique in that all those involved in executing decisions have their say in the nature of that decision and how its carried out. Hence, it strives for fairness. The argument is that people become more attached to - that is, dedicated to - the task once they have had their role in its formulation.
Of course, this approach to leadership is really not "leadership" in any normal sense, since it's about collaboration. At most, the person "leading" this is a facilitator so as to extract opinions. The person "leading" is acting in such a way that soon, his leadership is no longer needed.
Finally, the real concept is that, once many people with experience and expertise in an area are involved, not only the execution, but also the formulation of the final decision is as well-informed as it can possibly be.
Now, a judge without a jury is as non-participative as it can be. ...
This brief response deals with the concept of participative leadership as applied to many offices in the criminal justice system.