Expert answer:Discussion -1

Expert answer:First question:Read this four articles and to holistically at the four articles and comment on what you see are two of the most significant issues facing a leader given this organizational context. Why did you pick these two issues? Conduct your own review of valid sources (one source at minimum for each issue that address some solutions to your two issues and discuss these solutions. Please include an APA formatted reference to your sources.Second question:For this question, I want you all to describe your ideal-type non-profit leader. Reflecting on this four articles, identify four top characteristics of the ideal-type non-profit leader and explain why you picked them.The four articles in attachment.
alfes_and_langner___paradoxical_leadership.pdf

hager_and_brudney___in_search_of_strategy.pdf

heemskerk_et_al___behavioral_determinants_of_nonprofit_board_performance.pdf

lai___a_multimodal_view_of_voluntary_organizations.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Organizational Dynamics (2017) 46, 96—103
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/orgdyn
Paradoxical leadership:
Understanding and managing conflicting tensions to
foster volunteer engagement
Kerstin Alfes, Nils Langner
INTRODUCTION
“Life’s most persistent and urgent question is: What are
you doing for others?”
Martin Luther King Jr.
As many governments around the world reduce their
spending and welfare activities in order to balance budgetary requirements, non-profit organizations (NPOs) have
become more and more important for the effective functioning of our society. Although it is difficult to find a
common description encompassing the many and various
types of NPOs, they generally differ from private sector
organizations in four ways. First, their core purpose is
focused on implementing a (social) mission rather than on
generating profit. This mission can be manifold and diverse,
ranging from the provision of support for the elderly, disabled or children, to political undertakings such as the
enforcement of human rights in developing countries. Second, they often rely on funding from third parties, such as
government bodies or other individual donors, to carry out
their activities. Third, NPOs have a complex network of
stakeholders who influence the ways in which they operate.
These include donors, beneficiaries, governments, the public and the NPO’s employees. Fourth, as NPOs operate in a
resource-tight environment, they are reliant on the support
of volunteers to ensure the full provision of their services.
Volunteering, in general, is a specific form of altruistic
helping behavior. Penner describes volunteering as “ . . .
long-term, planned, prosocial behaviors that benefit strangers and occur within an organizational setting.” Volunteering, therefore, differs from other kinds of spontaneous
helping activities (e.g. rendering first aid in the case of an
accident), because of its planned nature. It also differs from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.005
0090-2616/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
one-time pro-social behaviors (e.g. selling home-made lemonade to raise money for a school trip), because volunteering
implies a longer-term commitment to serving others. And
finally, volunteering is different from other informal helping
behaviors that only occur in a private setting (e.g. pet sitting
for a neighbor or giving free tutoring to a friend’s child).
Around the world, many individuals engage in volunteering activities. In Europe, for instance, 92—94 million people
volunteer on a regular basis, which represents almost 25% of
the population. In Australia, around 6.1 million citizens
volunteer, and in the US it is estimated that around 63 million
individuals volunteered 7.9 billion hours of volunteer service, worth $184 billion, in 2014. Globally, the number of
volunteers working in NPOs between 1995 and 2000, if taken
together, would amount to the ninth biggest country in the
world in terms of population size.
Despite the considerable amount of volunteer activities,
one of the key tasks NPOs need to focus on is engaging and
retaining their volunteers, which is a challenge for a number
of reasons. First, the so-called “reliability problem” of
volunteering suggests that volunteers are not bound by legal
but rather psychological contracts and therefore do not
receive payments for their services. Hence, it is very difficult
to reward them for their work, as most mechanisms commonly applied in a paid context (e.g. career development or
monetary rewards) cannot be transferred directly to volunteers. The lack of formal ties to the organization also makes
it much easier for volunteers not to show up for their service
or to quit the NPO compared to their paid counterparts.
Second, the problem of engaging volunteers is further
aggravated by the very nature of volunteering. It is complex
and characterized by different, sometimes contradictory
demands and expectations between the NPO and the
individual volunteer. For instance, while volunteers are
Paradoxical leadership and volunteer engagement
oftentimes driven by their identification with the NPO and its
beneficiaries, and tend to enjoy the freedom, flexibility, and
meaningfulness associated with their roles, it is also important to implement structures, clear role descriptions, and
feedback procedures to ensure that volunteers carry out
their roles in ways that enable the NPO to implement its
objectives and achieve its mission effectively and efficiently.
As a consequence, volunteers are often committed to carrying out specific tasks which they find personally meaningful.
But they are less enthusiastic to take over other responsibilities that the NPO assigns to them that are important for
the organization’s overall functioning. This puts volunteer
managers in a situation where they need to decide on how
much control they can exert before volunteers lose enjoyment of their work.
This complex and somewhat paradoxical nature of volunteering became especially evident in the European Refugee
Crisis of 2015. Since the beginning of 2015, increasing
numbers of refugees from civil war regions such as Syria,
Afghanistan, and Iraq have made the journey to the European Union to seek asylum, by traveling across the Mediterranean Sea or the Western Balkans to reach their
destination. In Germany, for example, the government
was faced with accommodating over 1 million refugees in
2015 alone. As the German government was overwhelmed
by the challenges involved in such an undertaking, thousands of citizens started to engage in volunteer activities in
reception camps and hostels for refugees. This trend was so
strong that in some instances volunteers had to be turned
away since there were no more tasks to be assigned.
Initially, the sentiment was uplifting and was characterized
by feelings of being able to make a positive impact on the
lives of refugees and by working in a self-directed and
autonomous way. However, although the volunteers were
enthusiastic about being able to help the refugees, it
became evident that there was a lack of clear direction
and coordination. This quickly resulted in chaos, confusion,
and disengagement among the volunteers. Many newspapers picked up on these cases in sensational, yet fitting,
headlines such as “Refugee Relief at the Limit”, “When
Challenge Changes into Excessive Demand”, and “Helpers
Who Need Help”. Eventually, this lack of direction and
coordination meant that many NPOs were not able to
achieve their goals, such as providing basic necessities,
shelter, and first aid to refugees. This led many volunteers
to quit their activities, as they were overworked, frustrated, and thus disengaged.
This example illustrates a quandary that volunteer managers face with regard to leading the volunteers: finding the
right balance between giving freedom to enhance volunteers’ sense of meaning in their volunteer work and providing
a clear structure to ensure effective service delivery and
coordination of effort. In this article, we develop a framework to help volunteer managers to handle these seemingly
contradictory demands, in order to raise the engagement of
their volunteer workforce. Specifically, we draw on Smith
and Lewis’s “Theory of paradox” to demonstrate how volunteer managers can achieve this aim by using a “paradoxical
leadership style,” that can be described as seemingly competing, yet interrelated, leadership behaviors employed to
meet competing follower demands simultaneously and over
time.
97
To examine how paradoxical leadership can enhance
volunteer engagement, we focus specifically on participative and directive leadership as two contrasting poles of
leadership behaviors often found in NPOs. While participative leadership aims at giving volunteers a sense of autonomy
over their work and involving them in decision-making processes, directive leadership aims at providing them with
clear goals and instructions on how to execute their tasks.
Both leadership styles have positive effects on volunteer
engagement; however, as we demonstrate below, focusing
on one style only can have detrimental effects in this regard,
thereby making it necessary for volunteer managers to employ
participative and directive forms of leadership simultaneously. We argue that a paradoxical leadership style is specifically relevant in a volunteering context, as it helps to
address core tensions inherent in volunteer work and enables
managers to foster volunteer engagement while making sure
that the NPO provides its services in an efficient way.
THE ROLE OF ENGAGEMENT IN
VOLUNTEERING
What is Volunteer Engagement?
Volunteer engagement is a relatively new concept in volunteering research, but it is increasingly garnering research
attention. It is inspired by the work of Arnold Bakker and
Wilmar Schaufeli who described it as a positive, fulfilling,
and task-related psychological state that is characterized by
a strong sense of (1) vigor toward, (2) dedication to, and (3)
absorption in volunteering activities. Volunteers who are
engaged in voluntary work are enthusiastic and proud of
their activities and see it as one means to expressing themselves while working.
Vigor, as the first dimension of engagement, is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience. This
means that volunteers who experience obstacles in their
voluntary activities (e.g. being faced with a large crowd of
people at the serving counter of a soup kitchen) see them as
challenges rather than stressors. Because of the perceived
challenge, they have fun in what they are doing and persistently work hard when providing their services.
Engaged volunteers also have high levels of dedication to
their volunteering activities. They feel a sense of enthusiasm,
inspiration, and pride, and they demonstrate a high level of
commitment to the NPO and its beneficiaries. They therefore
feel that their work is meaningful and benefits not only
themselves, but especially also individuals, groups, or causes.
As the final dimension of volunteer engagement, absorption in work activities is characterized by high levels of
concentration and engrossment in one’s volunteering role.
Engaged volunteers oftentimes experience feelings of flow
at work, a mental state where time passes by rapidly–
—almost without being noticed–—and volunteers are
detached from everything apart from their volunteering
activities, thereby enabling them to concentrate better.
Why does Volunteer Engagement Matter?
Originating as part of the positive psychology movement,
engagement has been associated with a wide range of
98
K. Alfes, N. Langner
positive organizational as well as individual outcomes. While
research on engagement has been conducted mainly in the
paid context, recent findings suggest that it is also a relevant
concept in the public and non-profit sectors. From an organizational perspective, research has shown that the engagement of volunteers is associated with the intensity and
amount of hours spent in volunteering as well as the performance and commitment of volunteers, and it significantly
reduces volunteer turnover. Hence, engaged volunteers
work more, perform better, and remain longer in their
respective NPOs. Additionally, engagement is not only beneficial for NPOs, but has positive psychological effects on
individual volunteers. For example, engaged volunteers
show higher levels of overall well-being, including happiness
and perceived social worth, and they are more satisfied with
their work and their lives.
Given the overall positive effects of engagement for NPOs
and volunteers, it is evident that an engaged volunteer
workforce is a driving factor for both short-term performance as well as the long-term viability of NPOs. As volunteer work and any enjoyment thereof are what drive
volunteers to remain in an organization and put in their best
effort, it is crucial for organizations to identify conditions
that foster engagement. In the following sections, we
describe how NPOs can develop a leadership approach that
enables them to increase the engagement and retention of
their volunteer workforce.
HOW CAN VOLUNTEER MANAGERS ENHANCE
VOLUNTEER ENGAGEMENT?
Volunteer managers in NPOs, and their respective leadership
behaviors, play a pivotal role in fostering and maintaining
volunteer engagement. This is because volunteer managers
oftentimes serve as a bridge between the NPO and the
volunteer workforce in that they have a good overview of
processes in the NPO as well as its mission and strategies,
which in turn they disseminate to their volunteers. They are
also responsible for assigning tasks and goals to their volunteers, and through their leadership, they directly influence
how volunteers feel about their role, the service they deliver
Clarity
Focus
Prioritization
Directive
Leadership
Repression
Frustration
Alienation
on behalf of their respective organization, and their willingness to continue to do volunteer work.
Yet, up until now, we know very little about how to lead
volunteers effectively, and the scant research findings
remain segmented and inconclusive. This is because
researchers have focused mainly on examining particular
leadership styles that were thought to be most useful in this
particular sector. For example, some behavioral scientists
have found that co-determination and autonomy (i.e. participative leadership) are the key drivers of volunteer engagement, whereas others have highlighted the need for clear
direction and a shared goal (i.e. directive leadership). However, managing volunteers often puts managers in paradoxical
situations in which a simple choice between participative or
directive leadership may not be the most effective way to
lead. Instead, they are required to search for ways to satisfy
conflicting demands at the same time. For example, volunteers demonstrate a strong commitment to their beneficiaries. They want to experience ownership and impact through
their actions, making it necessary to give them leeway
through participative leadership. But by the same token,
they may not possess the necessary skills, experiences, or
information required to carry out certain activities, thereby
making it necessary to give them clear instructions and
specific goals, by providing directive leadership.
In the following, we draw from current research on
leadership to suggest that in a dynamic context such as
volunteering, managers may need to embrace simultaneously both participative and directive leadership as two
contrasting, yet interrelated, poles, rather than choosing
between either participative or directive leadership behaviors. Fig. 1 illustrates these propositions.
In this framework, participative leadership behaviors aim
at enhancing volunteer engagement by fostering their intrinsic motivation for and identification with their volunteering
roles. Participative leadership involves joint decision-making or shared influence in decision-making, sharing information with others, holding volunteers accountable, and giving
volunteers autonomy and flexibility in their work.
Psychologists have argued that by allowing volunteers to
participate in decision-making processes, participative
Functional Effects
Volunteer
Engagement
Dysfunctional Effects
Flexibility
Meaningfulness
Enjoyment
Participative
Leadership
Ambiguity
Confusion
Overload
Figure 1 Providing Directive and Participative Leadership to Foster Volunteer Engagement.
Note: Solid lines = functional effects; dotted lines = dysfunctional effects
Paradoxical leadership and volunteer engagement
99
volunteer managers may enhance volunteers’ acceptance of
decisions and increase their willingness to carry them out
accordingly. Indeed, research has shown that high levels of
goal acceptance and identification are crucial drivers of
volunteer engagement. Additionally, providing flexibility
and autonomy in a role allows volunteers to experience a
sense of psychological ownership of their tasks, that is, the
feeling that one is responsible for the outcomes of volunteer
work makes the tasks meaningful and intrinsically enjoyable,
thereby increasing levels of engagement. Hence, participative leadership fosters a fulfilling and positive work-related
state of mind (engagement) through intrinsically motivating
factors such as personal identification, psychological ownership, feelings of self-control, and experienced meaningfulness.
However, participative leadership behaviors may also
have unforeseen negative consequences for volunteer
engagement. For instance, a hands-off style of leadership,
as an extreme form of participative leadership with very
little supervision, can lead to poorly defined roles and
procedural uncertainty, in that volunteers might not understand their roles and are not able to carry out their tasks
effectively. Delegating all powers, responsibilities, and tasks
can therefore be perceived by volunteers as a lack of leadership and support by their managers, leading ultimately to
frustration and lower overall engagement. Unclear guidance
and coordination by volunteer managers can also lead to
task- and process-related conflicts between volunteers
which negatively impacts the working atmosphere.
It is therefore important that volunteer managers simultaneously provide clear directions and objectives via a
directive leadership style, in order to ensure that work
procedures are aligned with the organization’s vision and
objectives. By providing direction, they set and monitor
specific milestones and provide clarity about roles. Furthermore, directive leadership behaviors enhance goal attainment by scrutinizing work and giving regular performance
feedback to volunteers. Having a clear goal helps volunteers focus on their actual work and thereby fosters their
overall engagement. In addition, they are also able to
anticipate future outcomes of the services they provide
and prioritize their tasks to achieve their goals. Put simply,
providing direction through clear communication and
detailed instructions can help volunteers understand what
to do and why to do it, and thus to stay engaged with their
volunteering tasks.
While directive leadership can be positive for volunteer
engagement and the overall performance of the NPO, it can
Participative
Leadership
Figure 2
also have unwanted consequences, in that it may be perceived as rigid and repressive, specifically in the case of
micromanaging. For instance, providing too much direction
can be perceived as stifling, as it inhibits the potential for
self-development and personal growth. With too many rules
and too little flexibility, volunteers are likely to feel reprimanded, marginalized, and ignored; moreover, this can
evoke feelings of pressure and stress and therefore reduce
their overall level of engagement.
Following the everyday wisdom that “there are two sides
to every coin,” we suggest that participative and directive
leadership behaviors can be seen as complements rather
than substitutes that need to be integrated in order to
engage volunteers successfully. The extent to which volunteer managers draw from participative versus directive leadership styles in their day-to-day interactions depends on a
range of contextual factors such as the type of NGO and its
mission, the volunteering role, the specific situation in which
a volunteer needs to be managed, and the skills, abilities,
and motivations of the individual volunteer. Fig. 2 illustrates
the tensions between participative and directive leadership
behaviors faced by volunteer managers along three dimensions: (1) decision-making: participation versus centralization, (2) output control: trust versus monitoring, and (3)
process control: flexibility versus instructions.
HOW TO EMBRACE PARADOXES IN
ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICE
In the fol …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades