Organizational Health and the Leadership Crisis   Part One: Organizational Health. Owens and Valesky (2022) state that o

Organizational Health and the Leadership Crisis

Part One: Organizational Health.

Owens and Valesky (2022) state that organizational health has ten indicators that tell the quality in which a school or organization works and serves its members. These indicators include:

1.      Goal Focus

2.      Communication Adequacy

3.      Optimal Power Equalization

4.      Resource Utilization

5.      Cohesiveness

6.      Morale

7.      Innovativeness

8.      Autonomy

9.      Adaptation

10.  Problem-Solving Adequacy

My present school is ranked (Scale 1-5).

Indicator

Ranking (1-5)

Goal Focus

4

Communication Adequacy

3

Optimal Power Equalization

3

Resource Utilization

4

Cohesiveness

5

Morale

4

Innovativeness

3

Autonomy

4

Adaptation

4

Problem-solving Adequacy

3

Three most important Indicators.

The three indicators of health in the organization that are critical are also communication adequacy, morale and cohesiveness.

Communication level must be satisfactory since it will make every one understand the objectives, expectations in the organization and the changes. Confusion will also be avoided due to open communication. Trust will also be achieved between the staff members.

Morale defines the motivation and satisfaction that the employees get at their work place. The staff will be more dedicated, prolific and obedient with high morale, therefore, improving the overall performance by a higher percentage.

The sense of cohesiveness is an indication of the harmoniousness of the working direction by the members. An integrated organization will result to teamwork and support each other and share responsibility that will be invaluable in an education structure that depends on teamwork and trust.

Part Two: The Leadership Crisis.

According to the video by Bob Chapman (2020) titled The Leadership Crisis, he notes that employees are often made to believe that the organizations that people work in are not interested in them. He says that leadership has lost its people oriented values and has deviated too much in profits and shareholder value. According to Chapman, the actual leadership must deliver value to all and all people and assist them to cultivate and contribute their gifts to the world and feel valued.

In consideration of my personal experience, I have served in the settings where the leadership style was largely result-oriented, instead of relationship-oriented. This could have ended up causing stress, burn out and undermined. In fact, it was the leaders who were considerate, appreciative and supportive that made the atmosphere in which the employees felt more interested and motivated.

My philosophy as a leader will be consistent with Chapman since it is a leader who considers the position to be that of a caretaker of people he or she leads. Control and authority has got nothing to do with leadership, but creating growth, creating trust, and becoming human to everybody in the team.

The Barry-Wehmiller type of leadership style by Chapman supports a we-centric culture, as opposed to a me- centric culture. This would make workplaces a community of care where employees would feel appreciated at least have a feeling of greater purpose. The result of this working philosophy will be a satisfaction of the job, the emergence of better relationships and the success of this organization in the long-run.

References

Chapman, B. (2020, October 20). The leadership crisis [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErOj_Z6kNpE

Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2022). Organizational behavior in education: Leadership and school reform (12th ed.). Pearson.