Povzetek
Vpliv vodje je porazdeljen na različna področja, ki so v njegovi domeni, mi pa smo si, v okviru projektnega dela (ŠrI), izbrali tisto, ki ostaja v nekakšni sivem območju, saj zanj rado zmanjka časa – tj. klima, pozitivna klima. Po prebrani literaturi smo spoznali, da je vodja pri ustvarjanju pozitivne klime v zavodu res ključni agens. In tako smo fokus svoje raziskave obrnili h korelaciji vodja – pozitivna klima (zanimalo nas je, kako in za koga je ta povezava pomembna, kaj lahko zavodu prispeva, ali jo lahko namensko spodbujamo in kako). Odločili smo se za izvedbo anonimne ankete med zaposlenimi v naših zavodih, nato pa smo anketni vprašalnik preoblikovali še v intervju za vodstvene kadre. Na podlagi prejetih odgovorov smo lahko opravili primerjalno analizo za izbrana področja, in sicer: organiziranost, medsebojni odnosi, komuniciranje, nagrajevanje, karierni razvoj, način vodenja in splošno počutje v zavodih. Izkazalo se je, da zgolj na področju medsebojnih odnosov ni treba določiti smernic za izboljšave, na preostalih pa so se, sodec po odgovorih, mnenja zaposlenih in vodstva mestoma razhajala, zato smo izoblikovali predloge za izboljšave, ki so prejkone izhodišče za razmislek in iskanje nadaljnjih rešitev.
Abstract
The Role of Leader in Achieving Positive Climate
While the influence of leaders extends over various fields within their domain, in the framework of our nsle project work we decided to delve into one that hovers in a kind of grey area, as leaders often run out of time before tending to it – i.e. that of climate, positive climate. Drawing on our literature review, we recognised that the leader really is a key agent in creating positive climate within the institution. Hence we directed our focus towards a correlation between the leader and positive climate (we were interested in how and for whom this relation was important, what it could bring to the institution, and whether we could purposefully encourage it and how). We decided to carry out an anonymous survey among the staff in our institutions, and then adapted the survey questionnaire for interviewing the leadership staff too. Based on the received responses we were able to carry out a comparative analysis of our selected fields: organisation, interpersonal relationships, communications, awarding, career development, leadership style, and general well-being in institutions. It turns out that it is only in the field of interpersonal relationships that there is no need to set guidelines for improvement. As for the rest, judging by replies, the views of staff and leadership diverge at some points, so we have outlined certain suggestions for improvements, which will most likely serve as a starting point for reflection and seeking further solutions.