Introduction

Leadership plays an important role of enhancing process presentation in every social setting and particularly in educational backgrounds. This means that process outcomes is dependent on the nature of leadership. Evidently, oppressive leadership characterizes unviable approaches of curbing and managing behaviors of deviance in the society which in turn hinder purposeful objectives of a system. For example, most schools have been using traditional methods of punishments to control behavioral deviances among the students.  Leaderships in schools have been applying forms such as suspensions to discourage unethical behaviors which as a result lead to unconditional outcomes since they impact a student’s objectives. Traditional forms embrace unreliable approaches that in most cases develop notions that disregard instances of morality thus; fueling wickedness in the society at large. Nevertheless, modern-day society has brought to the fore conditional approaches of regulating dishonesty and at the same time instilling elements of morality in different social backgrounds. Social healing for example is among the considerable approaches of enriching social effectiveness.

Arguably, traditional punishments characterize some significant benefits as far as management of social immorality is concerned.   Therefore, leaders in different backgrounds preferably school systems consider harshness as an effective approach of demonstrating social outrages towards particular behaviors.  Additionally, some repute its appropriateness on the basis of the need to regulate continuance of offensive deviances by limiting social make over. Leaders commonly relate a punishment to traditional forms in order generate social fear and extensively due to their immediacy. Schools for example suspend students who violate system legitimacy so as to limit future spread of illegitimate behaviors. Ordinary leaderships in such cases critique angry punishments as viable methods of curbing illegitimacy in public institutions with immediacy since such punishments unarguably facilitate immediate management of social irregularities.  Regardless of its beneficial attributes, traditional approaches include distinctive forms that elevate development of differing ideologies among social groups and so, entertaining social differences and extensively limiting goal achievement.   The primary element that denotes inappropriateness of traditional punishments is linked to its possibility of destructing effective interaction between leaders and society members.  These punishments hinder socialization and as a result limiting chances of goal achievement.  It is evident that social interaction between school leadership and students for example plays an important role on reference to goal achievement. Oppressive leadership therefore disconnects social links between the parties and in so doing discouraging process continuance. For instance, suspensions in schools discourage students from accomplishing certain goals in life since in actuality the punishment limits practice involvement.  Nevertheless, the leadership has unveiled the potential of causing moral decay. The defined forms of criminal punishments are likely to cause aspects of social inequality by communicating notions of social differences such as racism.

In contrast, restorative approach posits equitable strategies of resolving unlawful practices on the basis of social integrity. This approach emphasizes application of strategic mechanisms on the bounds of desires to facilitate community goodness by enhancing compassion between conflicting parties. The primarily aim of restorative strategy is to enhance social understanding in order to harmonize the society at large.  Restorative approach is an effective method of bringing about longstanding solutions since it primarily emphasizes on social guidance which highly modifies victims of offensive behaviors for a better future. Restorative approach is commonly uncertain in situations demanding immediate solutions. The approach is time-consuming since it involves systematic reconciliation between disagreeing parties. Nevertheless, the process is may be inconvenienced by various factors such as individual attitudes which changes from time to time hence hindering resolutions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the foregoing illustration communicates the important role of leadership in the society.  It evidences that leaders play a very significant role as far as resolution of societal differences are concerned. Leaders in various social backgrounds needs to apply embrace empathetic mechanisms in order to cause effective change in the society.  For that reason, it is important to state that resolution of social problems necessitate restorative leaders since they mostly guarantee accommodating changes in future unlike traditional leaders who clarify unreliable mechanisms of handling social differences and hence positing significant threats to the future of society.