From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision (original) (raw)
Related papers
Leadership and Bass Transactional and Transformational Leadership Theory
Sosyal Ve Ekonomik Arastırmalar Dergisi, 2004
The purpose of this study is to address Bass' Transactional and Transformational Leadership Theory that is arguably the one of the most comprehensive leadership theory in organisational studies. The theory is especially relevant at a time when many organisations need to make radical changes in the way things are done in order to survive in the face of increasing economic competition. Because, increasing competitiveness and a very complex environment made organisations need a new type of leader who can make followers perform beyond expectation. Keywords: Leadership, transactional and transformational leadership, leader effectiveness, research on bass' transformational and transactional leadership theory. Özet Bu makale Bass'ın Türkçe'de transformasyonel yada dönüşümcü liderlik olarak adlandırılan teorisini incelemektedir. Liderlikle ilgili, belki de, en kapsamlı yaklaşım olan teori önce ayrıntılarıyla açıklanmış, konu ile ilgili yapılan araştırmalara yer verilmiştir. Araştırmaların sonuçlarından hareketle, özellikle artan rekabet ve değişim ortamında transformasyonl liderlik davranışı gösteren yöneticilerin işletmelerine sağlayabileceği katkılara ve işletme çalışanları üzerindeki olumlu etkilerine değinilmiştir.
2006
Since the late 1970s, the literature on leadership has featured a debate and program of research exploring relationships between transactional and transformational leadership. To some degree, this work was given an impetus by both the search for appropriate leadership strategies within the increasingly turbulent, unstable and competitive post-World War 2 economic, geopolitical and social environment (Simic, 1998) and the declining significance of the pre-existing 'social contract' which had implied long-term employment in return for loyalty (Griffin, 2003). With the apparent demise of a transaction fundamental to organizational leadership and an emerging context of organizational volatility came the search to better understand the leaderships of stability and of change; and the leaderships of contract and of values. This short paper reviews current understandings of these approaches to leadership. It distinguishes between transactional leadership (characterised here as the leadership of stability and exchange) and transformational leadership (the leadership of values and volatility), setting out their similarities, key differences, and relationship to one another. According to Cox (2001), there are two basic categories of leadership: transactional and transformational. The distinction between these forms of leadership was first made by Downton (1973, as cited in Barnett, McCormick & Conners, 2001) but gained little currency until James McGregor Burns' (1978) large-scale work on political leaders-Leadership-was published. Burns distinguished between ordinary (transactional) leaders, who exchanged tangible rewards for the work and loyalty of followers, and extraordinary (transformational), adaptive leaders who en gaged with followers and raised consciousness about the significance of specific outcomes and new ways in which those outcomes might be achieved (Barbuto, 2005; Barnett, McCormick & Conners, 2001; Gellis, 2001). Burns contrasted transactional and transformational leadership, believing that they lie at opposite ends of a continuum (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1989). This view was supported by early empirical studies which suggested that the two leadership approaches could appear independently of one another (Avolio, Bass & Jung, 1999). Burns also claimed that the latter form of leadership is more effective than the former (Brown & Moshavi, 2002, p. 80). Burns' work attracted a good deal of attention amongst management and leadership researchers who endeavoured to explore the reliability of his claims and to evaluate their applicability in other organizational settings. Perhaps most notable and influential amongst these investigators was Bernard Bass, now Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Organizational Behavior, at the State University of New York (Binghampton). Bass was concerned that Burns set transactional and
Conceptualizing and Measuring Transformational and Transactional Leadership
Existing conceptualizations and measures of transformational and transactional leadership have unclear theoretical bases, confound leadership and its effects, and are not necessarily suitable for public organizations. Overcoming these problems is necessary to test how leadership affects performance. Many public administration scholars apply the concepts, emphasizing the need to ensure that the concepts are applicable in both public and private organizations. The article reconceptualizes transformational and transactional leadership and develops and tests revised measures that can be employed on employees and leaders, are robust in terms of repeated use by the same respondents, and are applicable to public and private organizations alike.
Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ
Journal of Occupational …, 1997
A questionnaire used often to measure transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership is che Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire developed by Bass (Bass & Avolio, 1989). This study aims to test the factor structure of the MLQ as developed by Bass & Avolio. The MLQ-8Y was analysed using data collected in Dutch organizations. Seven hundred employees from eight organizations rated their leader's behaviour with the MLQ. First, an indication of the internal consistency of the scales developed by Bass is reported. The results of subsequent factor analyses show that the three types of leadership can be found in the data; however, the scales found here are slightly different from Bass' scales. Especially, the transactional and laissez-faire scales have been altered on theoretical and empirical grounds. The adapted version of the MLQ covers the domain with fewer items. Leadership has been an important topic in the social sciences for many decades. Recently there has been a renewed interest in leadership. Meindl (1990) notes that this recent resurgence of interest in studying the topic of leadership appears to be accompanied by an acceptance of the distinction between transactional and transformational leadership, with an emphasis on the latter. Quinn (1988) compares transactional and transformational leadership with other differentiations in leadership such as relations oriented-task oriented leadership (Fiedler, 1967), consideration-initiating structure (Korman, 1966), and directive-participative or autocratic-democratic leadership (Heller & Yukl, 1969). Bass (1990/;) claims that the transactional-transformational model is a new paradigm, neither replacing nor explained by other models such as the relations oriented-task oriented leadership model. Some authors describe concepts similar to transformational leadership as charismatic, inspirational or visionary leadership (Bryman, 1992). Although the terminology used by these authors is different, more similarities than differences seem to exist between these views of the phenomenon of leadership. Bass inspired and is still one of the major contributors to this approach that Bryman (1992) calls 'the New leadership'. 'The New leadership' approach revived leadership as a topic of theory and research, after many lost interest and faith in this concept (see, for instance. Miner, 1975). 'The New leadership' integrates ideas from trait, style and contingency approaches of leadership and also incorporates and builds on work of sociologists such as Weber (1947) and political scientists such as Burns (1978).
Over the past 20 years, the Multifactor Leadership Theory (MLT) has become one of the most dominant theories of leadership. This popularity is due, in part, to the broad range of leadership behaviors included in the theory. Bass (1985) and colleagues conceptualized leadership as consisting of three primary factors (i.e., transformational, transactional, and passive/laissez-faire leadership) 51 Michael B. Hargis, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Management and Innovation at the University of Central Arkansas. His research interests focus on understanding how person-and situation-based factors influence both functional (e.g., task persistence, innovation, goal setting) and dysfunctional (e.g., unethical decision-making, workplace deviance) behavior in organizations. His research appears in journals such as Chris Piotrowski has served as a research consultant at the University of West Florida since 1982. He has authored over 200 peer-reviewed publications, including book chapters over the past 30 years. He has a research focus on database searching, assessment issues, and the study of disasters. His work has appeared in the Encyclopedia of Stress. Chris also serves as a reviewer for journals in psychology, medicine, and business.
THE INTERFACE OF TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATION LEADERSHIP: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to discuss the relationship of transactional and transformational leadership. Specifically, this paper looks at how transactional and transformational leadership interact with one another, particularly how transformational leadership augments transactional leadership. In order to look at this interaction, there is first a description of the characteristics of both leadership types. Next, several studies are reviewed in an effort to look at how transformational leadership augments transactional leadership The studies are diverse across various types of organizations and industries in order to give a broader look at how transformational and transactional leadership characteristics interact. KEYWORDS: Leadership, Transactional, Transformational
TRANSACTIONAL TO TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP – A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS
In a globalised world, the role of every employee in an organization does not stagnate only with the idea of becoming a successive leader, but also to instill the organisational culture in them. Leadership is an individual's ability to efficiently direct a group of individuals or workers towards achieving pre-set goals of a given organisation. The characteristics of leaders have to impact the growth of the organisation. Developing the characteristics and skills is what differentiates between a follower and a leader. This paper tracks the impact of " Transformational leadership " on the society. The topic which has made a key impact on the global world post the industrial revolution was the qualities that have to be possessed by an industrial leader and entrepreneur which continues to be a debatable topic till today. Though there are many terms which describe the style of leadership, ranging from autocratic to laissez-faire, transformational leadership is a style in which, both subordinates and the leader, together identify the need for the organisation, set up a goal, and accomplish the same with a number of committed members. This conceptual paper contributes to the understanding of transformation that has taken place in the leadership style over a period of time and the necessary changes that will occur in the future in order to keep pace with the changing world. This study is done to bridge the gap between the skill sets and the characteristics that the traditional leaders possessed and how the influence of leadership has evolved from an era of post and pre-independence and a comparative study between spiritual, motivational and political leaders with business and functional leaders based on their quality traits.