This paper examines transformational leadership as a model for motivating employees and fostering organizational effectiveness. Beginning with a general overview of leadership qualities — including communication, integrity, and vision — the paper contrasts transformational and transactional leadership styles, drawing on theorists such as Bass, Yukl, and Podsakoff. It explores how transformational leaders inspire commitment by engaging followers at a values-based level rather than through contingent rewards, and considers whether the two styles are mutually exclusive or complementary. The paper also discusses derivative models such as the "substitutes for leadership" framework proposed by Kerr and Jermier, concluding that transformational leadership generally produces superior motivation and performance, though some organizational contexts may benefit from a hybrid approach.
The issue of leadership and leadership effectiveness has become a focus of much debate in the past two decades. This has resulted in two central trajectories of thought on leadership, particularly in the business and organizational world. A central line of inquiry into what makes an effective leader has led to the transformational approach, or school of thought, on leadership. This refers to "the identification and examination of those leader behaviors that influence followers' values and aspirations, activate their higher-order needs, and arouse them to transcend their own self-interests for the sake of the organization" (Bass, 1985, as cited in Podsakoff, 1996).
The transformational or charismatic type of leadership ability is examined from a number of theoretical perspectives. Transformational leadership is seen, for instance, as an augmentation or continuation of the qualities ascribed to the transactional leadership style. On the other hand, there is also the view that these two leadership styles are distinct and require different personalities and leadership abilities. Both categories of leadership will be discussed in this paper. The central thesis to be explored is that the transformational model of leadership tends to promote and motivate the best cooperation and involvement from employees and members of the organization.
There are certain common assumptions made about transformational leadership — namely, that the transformational leader is one who inspires and motivates through vision and example. However, in order to understand the significance of transformational leadership at a deeper level, it is necessary to briefly discuss the meaning and criteria of good leadership as a concept.
Leadership is a quality that is notoriously difficult to definitively define. Nevertheless, a number of central characteristics can be identified that mark the qualities of a good leader. One of these is the ability to communicate one's thoughts, feelings, and ideas. A good leader must be able to perceive and understand the feelings and aspirations of others in the organization, and also be able to convey his or her views, ideas, and vision to those whom he or she leads. These two aspects — communicative ability and vision — are essential foundations for good leadership.
In understanding the contemporary prerequisites of good leadership and how they relate to the concept of transformational leadership, one must also take into account modern trends in leadership theory, and in particular the intersection between leadership and management and the relational model of leadership. This is in contradistinction to the conventional model of leadership, which emphasizes authoritarian leadership with a top-down structure. As will be discussed, these tendencies in contemporary thinking correspond to the differences between transactional and transformational leadership styles.
Another aspect that appears frequently in the literature is the "dimensionality" of leadership. This refers to the fact that leadership is a complex and difficult-to-define concept within the organizational environment. Stefano and Wasylyshyn (2005) contribute to the debate by identifying three leadership qualities essential in organizational leadership: integrity, courage, and empathy (ICE).
Williams (2005) elaborates on the meaning of good leadership in a contemporary context as follows:
"Leadership, especially, is very much about doing what is right for the situation and the people involved in it. Underlying such flexibility and differentiation of response, however, must be a consistency of values and ground rules, if the leader's professional credibility is to remain the crucial source of influence." (Williams, 2005, p. 1)
Credibility and integrity have become prominent aspects of good leadership. As Williams states, "in today's world, personal integrity, too, is coming to be regarded as a critical factor, as the triple bottom line of profitability, concern for the environment and, thirdly, social responsibility, becomes an established business imperative" (Williams, 2005, p. 1). Other aspects of good leadership include close engagement with others and a wide contextual perspective that enables a more holistic understanding of the organizational environment and its potential problem areas (Williams, 2005, p. 3). These attributes can be seen in relation to the debate between transactional and transformational theories of leadership.
From this assessment of different leadership qualities, two central perspectives have been developed — although they are sometimes considered to intersect. These are the authoritarian or autocratic style and the participative or democratic style. In brief, the authoritative style is the more traditional form, in which the leader instructs employees about what should be done and how it must be accomplished. This style has been compared with the more democratic style of leadership. Bass and Stodgill refer to these two styles as the "two overarching clusters of leadership styles" (Ascher & Hirschfelder-Ascher, 2005, p. 100). The democratic style of leadership is aligned with participative leadership and with transformational leadership. It is against this background that we can consider the meaning of transformational leadership as opposed to other leadership styles.
A succinct definition of transformational leadership is a "style of leadership in which the leader identifies the needed change, creates a vision to guide the change through inspiration, and executes the change with the commitment of the members of the group" (Transformational Leadership, n.d.). In essence, this leadership style refers to a leader who constantly inspires his or her team with a shared vision of the future. Transformational leaders are highly visible and are usually individuals who are continually communicating with those around them. An important aspect of this model is that the leader does not necessarily lead from a position of authority or within a strict hierarchy, but tends to delegate responsibility.
The transformational model of leadership is in line with modern theoretical and practical tendencies that emphasize a more interactive style of leadership — one that stresses the involvement of employees and staff in the process of management. In this regard, Wilmot (1987) emphasizes the aspect of receptivity and the understanding of shared perspectives as essential components in motivating staff:
"We gain information from transactions that is not available from simple knowledge of attitude similarity or dissimilarity, [such as] (a) the way the other sees us, (b) the degree of receptivity the other has to our own perspectives and points-of-view, and (c) the intentions of the other regarding us." (Wilmot, 1987, p. 95)
In essence, the transformational model of leadership focuses on responding to the needs of members or subordinates in the organization in order to create a dynamic and interactive working environment. Furthermore, an important aspect of this type of leadership model is that it is intended to "transform relationships within the institution in order to orient followers to 'higher' objectives that transcend their personal interests" (Ascher & Hirschfelder-Ascher, 2005, p. 101). As Tyler (2005) states, in transactional leadership there is a one-dimensional hierarchy of needs and requirements. Transactional theory suggests that "people will follow those leaders that they feel can solve group problems in a way that will lead to personal gain for group members. Similarly, transactional theories of leadership suggest that leader-follower relations depend on resources received from leaders in the past or expected in the future" (Tyler, 2005, p. 179).
As discussed briefly above, there is a primary difference between transactional and transformational types of leadership. The main difference lies in the interactive and relational approach to leadership in the latter, as opposed to the more conventional model of the former, which views leadership in terms of needs, dependencies, and transactions. The question that naturally arises is whether these two styles of leadership are truly distinct or whether there are areas of congruence.
In the transactional model, the leader tends to focus on the "here and now" and on contingent rewards for staff. This style also tends to focus on problems and the rectification of mistakes (Firth-Cozens & Mowbray, 2001). By contrast, "transformational leadership looks for ways to motivate followers with a view to engaging them more intimately in the process of work — it is 'performance beyond expectations'" (Firth-Cozens & Mowbray, 2001). This form of leadership is therefore more capable of dealing with change and energizing employees. Such employees are "keen to go beyond the evidence to build something new. They are entrepreneurial, take risks, and are often informal in their relationships, always seeking to develop individuals and respond to their needs and interests" (Firth-Cozens & Mowbray, 2001).
Transactional leadership refers to the more traditional view that the leader should hold a certain power and authority over employees. This view posits the use of power as the primary functioning aspect of leadership, and involves gaining trust, respect, and confidence from employees, setting high standards of conduct, and motivating people to achieve their full potential. In the transactional model, the following aspects predominate:
Idealized Influence — Gaining trust, respect, and confidence; setting high standards of conduct; serving as a role model.
Inspirational Motivation — Articulating the future desired state and a plan to achieve it, including a clear vision.
Intellectual Stimulation — Questioning the status quo and continuously innovating, even at the peak of success.
Individualized Consideration — Energizing people to develop and achieve their full potential and performance. (Parry, 1998, p. 82)
In the transformational model, there is a greater emphasis on individuality and the sharing of responsibilities, as well as on "performance beyond expectations" (Bass, 1985). It is also a considerably more informal style of leadership, as it encourages individuals in the organization to develop their own needs and interests.
There is also the view that these two leadership styles are not necessarily diametrically opposed. Yukl (1989) suggests that transformational or charismatic behaviors "are believed to augment the impact of transactional forms of leader behavior on employee outcome variables, because 'followers feel trust and respect toward the leader and they are motivated to do more than they are expected to do'" (Yukl, 1989, p. 272). Nevertheless, there remains a stark difference in that the transformational style of leadership is more people-oriented and seeks to motivate subordinates not by issuing ordered tasks but by engaging them in the work process and making them feel part of the organizational structure and decision-making.
The four basic elements of transformational leadership can be described as follows:
Charisma and Mission: The leader supplies a sense of mission rather than exerting dominant control.
"Empirical evidence and critical evaluation of the model"
The above overview of transformational theory, particularly with regard to its contrast with transactional theory, strongly suggests that this style of leadership is one that brings out the best in people. This is largely due to the fact that this form of leadership involves members of staff in the actual running and decision-making process, as well as in the implementation of policy strategies. It is also a style of leadership that allows individuals to express their views and, most importantly, encourages staff members to act "beyond expectation."
You’re 68% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.