Introduction
Much of the organizational success of a work team depends on the leadership skills of the team leader. A team leader must motivate and inspire employees to be more productive, monitor conditions and attitudes, control processes and operations, and steer the team toward high performance. The absence of a leader for a team can be characterized as anarchy, which in most cases hurts productivity and performance. The leader is the key link between the employee and the outcome of their work, and it depends on the leader’s competence, effort and skill to ensure the outcome is positive. This paper examines leadership, often democratic and compassionate, comprehensively and critically. The field of occupational health and safety is used to conceptualize the report. The paper will examine the attributes of effective leadership, discuss theories and models, and present the views of expert communities and agencies.
Why Leadership Matters
Academic sources tend to confirm that democratic and compassionate leadership matters in the context of overall work group effectiveness. What is paramount is a concise definition of each of these types of leadership. For example, democratic leadership should be understood as a type of organizational power distribution in which workgroup members appear to be generally equal and respect, recognition, and worth are core values of the environment (Mansaray, 2019). For example, if the work environment needs to be modified so that workers have more rest, a democratic leader would gather the participants and listen to their opinions, discuss the various options and the decision would be weighed and supported by the majority. The workplace atmosphere is shaped in a way that encourages complicity, inclusion, and engagement when discussing proposals.
Compassionate leadership, on the other hand, is based on the use of social constructs and connections: such a leader is compassionate, empathetic, understanding and recognizes the experiences of his or her employees (West and Bailey, 2019). Such a leader, unlike a democratic leader, may pay more attention to the mental and physical well-being of employees, show concern for personal problems and be an active listener. As it follows, the focus of this type of leadership is the mental well-being of employees, and therefore, decisions will be made to increase this well-being and the employee’s sense of self in the team. In the above example, a compassionate leader could start by interviewing each employee and showing the importance of each voice, and then a general meeting to listen to opinions and jointly come to a solution that would be acceptable to each employee.
It is important to make it clear, however, that the two types of leadership mentioned above are not mutually exclusive and can be practiced by workgroup leaders simultaneously. Depending on the circumstances, a leader may exhibit traits that are more characteristic of compassionate or democratic leadership, mixing them up and appealing to them consciously or unconsciously. This approach ensures that the greatest strengths of each type are realized at the right time, and hence the team’s performance will increase.
Research has repeatedly shown that democratic and compassionate leadership improves work performance. Because both types of leadership involve complicity and increased employee engagement, the quality and quantity of communication in the group will increase (Teresa, 2023; West and Bailey, 2019). A sense of personal value is also proven to increase when these types of leadership are used, as it is important for employees to have their opinions, ideas, and criticisms heard (Katorina, 2021). Compassionate leadership alone has a positive effect on increasing the sense of understanding between employees and supervisors because it is based on exploring the needs and interests that employees have and that can be addressed to increase productivity (Ramachandran et al., 2023). An important consequence of effective and good leadership based on compassion and democratic values is to encourage the exchange of opinions and ideas (Rakov and De Ridder, 2023). Through extensive discussions and dialogues, knowledge is shared, which has a positive impact on workers’ competence and facilitates learning. In other words, as all the evidence above suggests, democratic and compassionate leadership is beneficial to any work group, and the occupational health field is no exception.
The Field of Occupational Health
No organizational environment is immune from the risks of accidental injury and damage that employees may suffer on the job. A healthcare worker may cut himself with a scalpel or be infected with nosocomial infections, a construction worker may be physically injured by falling heavy objects, and even a barista may accidentally burn himself on the job — the spectrum of potential risks and harms for any profession is, in fact, much wider. The interpretation of damages is also broader, as work activity involves not only physical health risks but also threats to mental safety. Occupations directly related to human interaction are particularly susceptible to risks such as burnout, occupational stress and depression (Petitta et al., 2021). One of the main objectives of occupational health science is to prevent potential injuries that workers may suffer due to negligent handling, accidents, or safety violations (NHS, 2022). In an ideal environment where occupational health practices and techniques are implemented to the maximum extent possible, employees do not suffer any injuries, and their physical and mental health appears to be in good health.
The Specialist Community Public Health Nursing (SCPHN) standards are the guiding principles of occupational health. The latest revision of the SCPHN standards was issued in 2022: these regulations apply to all types of nurses, including those involved in occupational health (OHN) (NMC, 2022). However, the individual standards are specialized only for the field of occupational health and are not applicable to other types of workers. The standards provide a comprehensive description of what OHNs do in the workplace: “They lead services to enhance the health and wellbeing of people in their workplaces and beyond”, “they promote and protect the health of the workforce”, “by advising on the creation of workplaces that are safe, efficient and inclusive” (NMC, 2022, p. 5). In addition, OHNs’ functions also include working with cross-disciplinary teams to create health initiatives, analyze data, and introduce change into the workplace.
The list of specialized skills and competencies expected of OHNs under the SCPHN standards includes many provisions. These include the need to identify the impact of decision-making on employee health (C.OHN1), to assess the impact of unemployment and the social environment on health (C.OHN2), to examine employee needs and create an inclusive environment (C.OHN6) (NMC, 2022). Research skills are also vital for OHNs, as indicated by standards D.OHN7, D.OHN1 and D.OHN3. The focus of such workers should be on achieving positive outcomes from their work, which include sustainability (E.OHN1), innovativeness (E.OHN2), and enhancing well-being (E.OHN8).
Critical Overview
Democratic and compassionate types of leadership can play an important role in achieving the goals and objectives postulated by SCPHN. As Standard C.OHN3 points out, OHNs have a duty to exercise effective leadership over the occupational health service, with such a service being open, inclusive and responsive (NMC, 2022). Democratic leadership seems to fulfill this function perfectly, as it encourages participants to engage in active dialogue and to be involved in the discussion of the ideas being adopted. The democratic leadership style also finds application in the achievement of the D.OHN5 standard, which aims at realizing impartial consultation and assistance: since power in this type of leadership is evenly distributed and authority is delegated, the impartiality of the initiatives taken is ensured. The E.OHN7 standard points to the need to expand and adapt the workplace based on the needs of employees. It is clear that this adaptation on the part of the leader is only possible after listening to the key needs and interests that subordinate employees have (Ramachandran et al., 2023). Compassionate leadership facilitates this channel of communication, so this type of leadership correlates with the field of occupational health. However, the F.OHN4 standard is also applicable, postulating the need to take initiatives to safeguard nurses’ well-being — as concern for well-being and emotional resilience is a cornerstone of compassionate leadership, the standard is perfectly satisfied.
Both compassionate and democratic leadership are effective in achieving a number of other important competencies of OHNs. In particular, both leadership styles promote the recognition of the employees’ values, opinions, and ideas as important (Rakov and De Ridder, 2023). This helps to satisfy the D.OHN8 standard of disclosing the need for specialized and individualized counseling on employee needs. Viewing the employee as a valuable resource for the company takes place not only in the internal environment but also in the external environment: a holistic approach ensures that different areas of the employee’s life are considered when designing change. Thus, both types of leadership are effective in meeting the standards of C.OHN2, C.OHN4, and E.OHN9, which requires the evaluation of the influence of factors not only on the employee but also on his or her surroundings, be they family or neighboring communities. The chosen leadership styles also satisfy C.OHN7, which reveals the need for the leader to respond to any problems that arise in the subordinate employee.
It is fair to say, however, that not all standards can be fully covered when deciding to use compassionate or democratic leadership styles or combinations of them. For example, F.OHN5 requires the OHNs leader to show business acumen in dealing with issues of employee well-being (NMC, 2022). Although both democratic and compassionate leadership are generally aimed at improving employee well-being, they can hardly be distinguished by a leader’s increased business acumen. Such acumen should be understood as the ability to make responsible and autonomous decisions that are ahead of time and able to be proactive rather than reactive. However, both leadership styles imply that employees’ opinions are considered and taken into account, which creates an additional time burden and prevents quick decision-making, especially in crisis situations. The contradictions are revealed by the E.OHN5 standard, which assumes the formation of a hierarchy of controls to assess health risks. In a democratic leadership setting, having a hierarchy seems inappropriate as responsibility is delegated. Questions may also arise in relation to the F.OHN2 standard, which involves the collection of quantitative and qualitative data to find ways to improve the working environment. While, in general, conducting statistical analyses with staff input is part of both compassionate and democratic types of leadership, turning to data instead of open discussion and dialogue can be a risk for an effective leader.
In general, it must be said that compassionate and democratic leadership are equally suitable for implementing the work of OHNs in clinical organizations. Certainly, they are only able to cover some of the standards. Most of the unnamed regulations are not directly related to the leadership style but instead require the leadership to have specialized knowledge and skills. Some contradictions were also found between what both types of leadership look like in practice and what SCPHN requires. However, for the most part, a compassionate leader and/or a democratic leader appears to be able to cover most of the competencies and lead to increased workgroup effectiveness. Following the NHS (2018), an effective leader is one who “does not always behave in identical ways” and “may act very differently”. It follows that effectiveness cannot be achieved by relying on just one or two leadership styles, as they cannot cover the full range of required competencies and work performance goals.
Treatment Outcomes
Good leadership has a direct link to what patient outcomes are to be expected. Studies have repeatedly shown a positive relationship between effective work team management and improved patient outcomes (Delgado and Kass, 2023). In general, achieving better outcomes can be fragmented into separate tasks. First, an effective leader, whether compassionate or democratic, is able to motivate the team to be more productive, which in turn improves work outcomes (Child, 2021). Second, the communication quality of the team has already been calculated, and thus, the risk of clinical errors due to miscommunication and lack of communication is minimized (Rakov and De Ridder, 2023). In addition, when concern for the well-being of workers is placed at the center, their personal problems can be reduced, which increases favorable and welcoming attitudes towards patients. In other words, both types of leadership, and especially their symbiosis, have an excellent impact on patient outcomes if they are executed effectively. In contrast, failure to develop effective leadership can cause not only a decline in workgroup performance but also a deterioration in clinical patient outcomes.
Increased communication value positively influences the formation of interdisciplinary teams for holistic patient care. When compassionate and/or democratic leadership is adopted, the value of every opinion in the group increases, which means that everyone has the opportunity (and is even encouraged) to speak up and contribute. In turn, in interdisciplinary groups, there is an increased likelihood of voicing all clinical opinions, even those that seem wrong, which has a positive effect on predicting risks and considering as many alternative scenarios as possible (Williams, 2023). It is clear that in this case, not only the communication value of the interdisciplinary groups but also the actual patient care is increased, and thus, the situation is a win-win situation.
Group Dynamics
The mechanism of how the two leadership styles influence the formation of the workgroup should be examined in more detail. According to Tuckman’s model, any team always goes through four phases: Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing (Jones, 2019). First, in the Forming phase, the group is not yet formed as such; the goals and objectives are unknown, and only the role acquaintance of the participants with each other takes place. Secondly, during Storming, there is a competition between the participants for power and influence in this group: whoever wins more attention and respect identifies themselves as the leader. The third phase is Norming when the group is faced with the need to establish norms, rules and regulations that govern the behavior of the team members. Finally, during performance, there is maximum involvement in the work process and an increase in overall performance.
Both types of leadership are applicable to the dynamic phases of workgroup formation. For example, democratic and compassionate leadership helps to hear the opinions and define the roles of the participants during Forming so that everyone is happy. Although there is a competition during Storming, both types of leadership can take into account the feelings, emotions and opinions of participants when choosing a leader and, if necessary, help to find a compromise. Without cooperation, the Norming phase cannot be realized, as each member of the group must accept the common rules. Compassionate leadership helps to identify what barriers prevent a member from accepting group norms, while democratic leadership helps to come to a decision about how to overcome the identified barriers. In other words, both types of leadership are applicable in group dynamics and can smooth out rough edges and reach mutual understanding without jeopardizing the existence of the work team.
Conclusion
Based on the above, it seems right to emphasize the importance of combining coherent leadership styles with each other. It has been shown that in terms of occupational health, this combination helps to cover more standards and has a positive effect on the working environment: it increases productivity, creates an atmosphere of meaningfulness, is responsive to needs and increases engagement. A recommendation, based on a critical analysis, is the need to train leaders to make them aware of different leadership styles and the importance of their symbiosis.
Reference List
Child, J. (2021) ‘Organizational participation in post-covid society — its contributions and enabling conditions,’ International Review of Applied Economics, 35(2), pp. 117-146.
Delgado, R. and Kass, D. (2023) ‘The effects of leadership behavior on psychological safety, job satisfaction, and perceptions of patient care,’ Keystone Journal of Undergraduate Research, 9(1), pp. 10-19.
Jones, D.A. (2019) ‘The Tuckman’s model implementation, effect, and analysis & the new development of Jones LSI Model on a small group,’ Journal of Management, 6(4), pp. 23-28.
Katorina, O. (2021) The effect of leadership on psychological well-being in a Russian company’s workplace. Web.
Mansaray, H.E. (2019) ‘The role of leadership style in organizational change management: a literature review,’ Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1), pp. 18-31.
NHS (2018) Leadership development. Web.
NHS (2022) Occupational health. Web.
NMC (2022) Standards of proficiency for specialist community public health nurses. Web.
Petitta, L., et al. (2021) ‘Emotional contagion as a trigger for moral disengagement: their effects on workplace injuries,’ Safety Science, 140, pp. 1-11.
Rakov, M. and De Ridder, J. (2022) Knowledge sharing in organizations: a present and futures study. Web.
Ramachandran, S., et al. (2023) ‘Whither compassionate leadership? A systematic review,’ Management Review Quarterly, pp. 1-85.
Teresa, M. (2023) ‘Two final examples of values-based/congruent leaders,’ Clinical Leadership in Nursing and Healthcare, pp. 445-451.
West, M., and Bailey, S. (2019) Five myths of compassionate leadership. Web.
Williams, K. (2023) ‘Loving cultural work at Southbank Centre: evolutions of emotional, embodied, collaborative labor,’ European Journal of Cultural Studies, 26(3), pp. 446-463.