Chapter 1. Introduction
Background of the Study
The local authorities unit ( LGU ) in the Philippines. whether this may be the barangay. municipality. metropolis. or state. is a fertile scene for the survey of the phenomenon of leading. along with the factors that go into leading. At the centre of this phenomenon is the barangay chair. municipality city manager. metropolis city manager. or provincial governor. As the leader of their several LGU. these local head executives ( LCEs ) take into history or are confronted with assorted factors as they go about their day-to-day swot at the barangay hall. metropolis hall. municipal hall. or provincial capitol. Obviously. leading is a complex phenomenon wherein a assortment of forces interact with each other. Four factors have been identified in the literature to play mutualist functions in the leading phenomenon.
The first is the leader himself. particularly his qualities or features. The following is the follower and the qualities or features he possesses. Then there is the factor of the state of affairs or context or bing fortunes. The last factor is communication mentioning to the medium and manner in which the communicating is delivered by either the leader or the follower. Given the figure of LGUs in the state from the barangay degree up to the provincial degree. many leading instances – specific cases of leading. along with their elements. procedures. forms. relationships. and causes and effects – merely base on balls by unwittingly. undocumented and undescribed.
This is unfortunate because the day-to-day information of how leading occurs could amount to raw informations or grounded informations even for mere profiling or benchmarking intents. Indeed. there are some LCEs whose good leading. being actors or winners during their several tenures. has gone live for descendants. Some of these good LCEs are no longer in office. may hold gone to shack abroad. or may hold even died. in which instance their achievements have become wholly disregarded. The LCEs themselves have thoughts of how they ran their several LGUs during their administrative footings. They knew in their clip what the challenges were to their leading ; how they were able to acquire some appreciation of the different factors or ingredients involved – their ain abilities and values. the followers’ needs. the communicating needed to carry followings to action. and the state of affairs – with the purpose of efficaciously transporting out a successful plan or undertaking.
In this respect. how the LCEs view their leading from their ain testimony is research stuff for bookmans and research workers. particularly from LCEs with good leading paths. Ultimately. one can derive penetrations and lessons from their disposal. direction. or in one word. administration. This is all for the interest of larning what the best manner is to run one’s LGU. Such concern is highlighted against the background of the Philippines holding its portion of bad LCEs around. Most of us. Filipinos. cognize much how some LCEs merely pass on their stock theories of effectual leading to the out of boundss and one admirations what of all time happened to the twine of seminar-workshops they attended that had to make with their function as responsible LCEs. Alternatively. they apply rules based on self-interest or politically-motivated docket Harmonizing to Conger ( 1990 ) . “unsuccessful leaders fail due to the inclusion of their personal purposes in the organisational goals…leaders substitute personal ends for shared organisational goals…leaders’ demands diverge from those of the components. ”
As a consequence. non merely is their leading non effectual. they are non able to endear themselves to the Black Marias of their occupants. Fortunately. the state does non hold a deficiency of painstaking. pro-service LGU leaders who have remained true to their public servant’s naming. Though few in figure. these LCEs may hold thrown their chapeau into the political ring because they did non like how their LGU had been run by predecessors. That is why the minute they got elected into office as municipal city manager. or metropolis city manager. or provincial governor. they instantly set about making their undertakings. Other LCEs may hold entered political relations to go on their predecessors’ causes and/or committednesss. They wanted to prolong the accomplishments that were already bearing fruit in the preceding disposal or disposals. Among the harvest of these LGU leaders who wanted to go on the unfinished undertakings of their predecessors were the former city managers of Marikina City and of San Juan City. Marides Fernando and JV Ejercito. severally.
Their attempts further turned around their several metropolis authoritiess which went on to go model LGUs and whose plans and undertakings were touted extremely successful ( Dulay 2011 ; Fernando. B. 2006 ; Gonzales. 2009 ; Zamora. 2007 ) . Marides Fernando and JV Ejercito were actors and winners. cogent evidence of that being the figure of awards they received one after the other from appreciative award-giving organic structures and organisations. The illation that can be made so is that the leading processes in their LGUs were good in topographic point. something that needs to be researched on. written up. published. and the information therein disseminated for everyone to cognize and to larn from. During their tenure. the media lionized them and their achievements in the imperativeness. circulating their good leading record to the populace. It would look so that about everyone knew about their leading efforts.
Today is different nevertheless. Both are no longer metropolis city managers. Marides Fernando has resumed the life of a private citizen. But JV Ejercito remains active in political relations. this clip as San Juan’s lone congressional representative. However. it would be still every bit fruitful to pay their leading efforts as metropolis city managers a revisit. Distanced from their former metropolis mayor’s function. no longer in the midst of it all as metropolis city managers. their ain remembrance or their personal positions of their leading every bit good as their ain description of the leading events and procedures so may convey out certain hindsight – farther disclosures – about those events and procedures. One advantage of this revisit is that they no longer are cautious about their statements since what they are stating is all about the yesteryear now. The same thing may be said about their staff and employees at the metropolis hall. the members of the party to which they belong. or the components. that is. the metropolis occupants.
As followings. they may hold been cautious about stating anything of the leading of their metropolis city manager while the latter was still in office. Today. they need non be cautious of their testimony about the past leading. or about the leading elements and procedures which they may hold observed and sensed at the metropolis hall. Their former foremans are no longer around anyhow. But their remembrance of the yesteryear would still be alive and every bit valuable – hindsight. disclosures. and all – for intents of this instance survey. Histories of leading may be approached from assorted agencies. One attack is analyzing leading from the eyes of the leader himself ; another is from the followings. From either position. the attack may look at the leader entirely in footings of his qualities/traits. or in add-on to the leader’s qualities. other factors may be examined. such as the state of affairs or context and the communicating used.
It may besides look at the leaders and the follower’s position at the same time. in footings of the four factors of leading such as in this instance survey Obviously. there is a great advantage of nearing leading from both the lens of the leader and the followings. This will govern out a nonreversible position. which normally in the yesteryear was a leader-centric point of position. Another advantage is the inclusion of other informations points. or dimensions or factors of leading – non merely the qualities/traits of the leader. nor the qualities/trait of followings but besides of the state of affairs and the communicating aspects that surely have a manus in the defining of leading.
This multi-sided scrutiny of leading contributes therefore to a all-around description and analysis of the disposal and leading of LGU leaders such as Marides Fernando. metropolis city manager of Marikina City and JV Ejercito. metropolis city manager of San Juan City. both of whom assumed their several mayoralty station in the same period. from 2001 to 2010.
Statement of the Problem
The survey addresses to reply the undermentioned inquiries: 1. By and large. this instances study will seek to reply the inquiry on how may the ex-city city managers themselves. Marides Fernando of Marikina City and JV Ejercito of San Juan City. every bit good as selected components of their several LGUs. describe and analyse the leading procedure during these two metropolis leaders’ disposal of their several LGU from 2001 to 2010. touching around the four factors in leading procedure. viz. . leader. followings. communicating and state of affairs?
2. Specifically. this paper will seek to reply what are leading attacks of both city managers? Who he is? What he knows? What he does? How may both ex-city city managers and selected components depict. analyze. and compare the leader factor and its relationship with other factors in the leading procedure?
3. What were the features of the followings of the two city managers? Who the followings are? What they know? What they do? How may both ex-city city managers and selected components depict. analyze. and compare the follower factor and its relationship with other factors in the leading procedure?
4. What were the manner and procedures of communications that were applied by the two city managers? What were the waies of communicating? The formality or the informality of the communicating? How may both ex-city city managers and selected components depict. analyze. and compare the communicating factor and its relationship with other factors in the leading procedure?
5. What were the prevalent state of affairss during the clip of their disposals? The relationship of the leader to his higher-ups. his equals and his subsidiaries? The organisation where the city manager was runing? How may both ex-city city managers and selected components depict. analyze. and compare the state of affairs factor and its relationship with other factors in the leading procedure?
6. What patterns and relationships among the four factors in the leading procedure – the leader. the follower. the communicating. and the state of affairs – may be identified. described. analyzed. and compared by the two ex-city city managers and by selected metropolis components?
7. What penetrations and lessons may be gained from the two instances of Marides Fernando and JV Ejercito for application in the country of public disposal and administration in general. and in LGU disposal and administration in peculiar?
Aims of the Study
1. To analyze. shed visible radiation on. and to depict the leading procedure during the disposal of ex-city city managers Marides Fernando and JV Ejercito. go arounding around four factors: leaders. followings. communicating and state of affairs.
2. To depict their leading attacks. who they are. what they know and what they do ; and. analyze. comparison. understand and appreciate the leader factor and its interrelatedness with other factors in the whole leading procedure.
3. To depict what sort of followings they have. who they are. what they know and what they do ; and. analyze. comparison. understand and appreciate the follower histrion and its interrelatedness with other factors in the whole leading procedure.
4. To depict their application of varied communicating procedure ; the way and formality of communicating and. analyze. comparison. understand and appreciate the communicating factor and its interrelatedness with other factors in the whole leading procedure.
5. To depict the state of affairs the two city managers were into ; their relationship with their superior. equals and subsidiary and the assorted organisations they were into ; and. analyze. comparison. understand and appreciate the state of affairs factor and its interrelatedness with other factors in the whole leading procedure. and
6. To depict. analyze. comparison. understand. and appreciate the forms in the leading procedure. the similarities and differences. in the two instances under survey.
7. To derive penetrations and learn lessons from the instance surveies of two accomplishing ex-city city managers for application in public disposal and administration.