Extract from : Transformational Leadership: Characteristics and Criticisms

Iain Hay (2008) School of Geography, Population and Environmental Management, Flinders University A prime function of a leader is to keep hope alive. (John W. Gardner) Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm. (Ralph Waldo Emerson) Setting an example is not the main means of influencing another, it is the only means. (Albert Einstein) Collectively, these three short quotations capture some of the key characteristics of transformational leadership, a form of leadership argued by some (Simic, 1998) to match the Zeitgeist of the post-World War II era. Academic debate about the nature and effectiveness of transformational leadership has developed since key work on the topic emerged in the 1970s. This short paper sets out to provide summary answers to three main questions about transformational leadership. What is it? How is it applied? What are some of its key weaknesses? In the course of the discussion, the following pages also provide a brief background to the origins of transformational leadership theory and point quickly to a possible theoretical future for a transformed transformational leadership. Transformational Leadership Theory According to Cox (2001), there are two basic categories of leadership: transactional and transformational. The distinction between transactional and transformational leadership was first made by Downton (1973, as cited in Barnett, McCormick & Conners, 2001) but the idea gained little currency until James McGregor Burns (1978) work on political leaders was published. Burns distinguished between ordinary (transactional) leaders, who exchanged tangible rewards for the work and loyalty of followers, and extraordinary (transformational) leaders who engaged with followers, focused on higher order intrinsic needs, and raised consciousness about the significance of specific outcomes and new ways in which those outcomes might be achieved (Barnett, McCormick & Conners, 2001; Cox, 2001; Gellis, 2001; Griffin, 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). The idea of transformational leadership was developed further by Bernard Bass, now Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Organizational Behavior, at the State University of New York (Binghampton), who disputed Burns conception of transactional and transformational leadership as opposites on a continuum. He suggested instead that they are separate concepts and that good leaders demonstrate characteristics of both (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 755). Interest in transformational leadership over the past three decades is the result of two tendencies (Simic, 1998, p. 50). First, significant global economic changes from the early 1970s which followed on from about 25 years of post-World War 2 stability meant that many large western companies such as General Motors and AT&T had to consider radical changes in their ways of doing business. Because companies needed to resolve the apparently contradictory challenge of finding new ways of affecting change while simultaneously building employee morale, new approaches to leadership were needed (Conger, 1999). Second, the theoretical base of work on leadership that prevailed in the 1970s was founded in explorations of traits, behaviours, and situations (contingency theories) and failed to account of some untypical qualities of leaders (Simic, 1998, p. 50). Transformational leadership is that which:

 facilitates a redefinition of a peoples mission and vision, a renewal of their commitment and the restructuring of their systems for goal accomplishment. It is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents. Hence, transformational leadership must be grounded in moral foundations. (Leithwood, as cited in Cashin et al., 2000, p.1) Transformational leadership fosters capacity development and brings higher levels of personal commitment amongst followers to organizational objectives. According to Bass (1990b, p. 21) transformational leadership occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and when they stir employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group. They may also motivate followers to transcend their own interests for some other collective purpose (Feinberg, Ostroff & Burke, 2005, p. 471) but typically help followers satisfy as many of their individual human needs as possible, appealing notably to higher order needs (e.g. to love, to learn, and to leave a legacy). Transformational leaders are said to engender trust, admiration, loyalty and respect amongst their followers (Barbuto, 2005, p. 28). This form of leadership requires that leaders engage with followers as whole people, rather than simply as an employee for example. In effect, transformational leaders emphasize the actualization of followers (Rice, 1993). Transformational leadership is also based on self-reflective changing of values and beliefs by the leader and their followers. From this emerges a key characteristic of transformational leadership. It is said to involve leaders and followers raising one anothers achievements, morality and motivations to levels that might otherwise have been impossible (Barnett, 2003; Chekwa, 2001; Crawford, Gould & Scott, 2003; Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 2004). Though an understanding of transformational leadership predicated on its outcomes appears to have been achieved, Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) observe that despite (or perhaps as a result of) over four decades of work in the field (see, for example, Bennis, 1959), the literature in educational leadership offers no single conception of the processes that constitute transformational leadership. For instance, Gronn (1996) remarks on the close relationship between charismatic and transformational leadership while pointing out the absence of notions of charisma in some work transformational leadership. And most authors in the field propose that four factors make up transformational leadership whereas Leithwood (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000) suggests six[1]. These are set out in Table 1 below. Table 1. Dimensions of Transformational Leadership. The Four Common Is Leithwoods Six [2] 1. Idealized influence . Charismatic vision and 1. Building vision and goals. behaviour that inspires others to follow. 2. Providing intellectual stimulation. 2. Inspirational motivation. Capacity to motivate 3. Offering individualized support. others to commit to the vision. 4. Symbolizing professional practices and values. 3. Intellectual stimulation. Encouraging innovation5. Demonstrating high performance expectations. and creativity. 6. Developing structures to foster participation in 4. Individualized consideration. Coaching to the decisions. specific needs of followers. Source: Leithwood & Jantzi (2000). Sources: Barbuto (2005); Hall, Johnson, Wysocki & Kepner (2002); Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Kelly (2003); Simic (1998).

Nevertheless, it is clear that general understandings of transformational leadership are dominated by acceptance of the four dimensions set out in the left-hand column of Table 1 (see, for example, Stone, Russell & Patterson (2003)). These factors have been confirmed by empirical work in the area (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003, p. 208). An outcome of this work is the isolation of four factors now accepted as being exhibited by effective transformational leaders. Their additive effect is summarized in Figure 1. Idealized influence (attributes and behaviours) + Individualized consideration + Inspirational motivation + Intellectual stimulation = Performance Beyond Expectations Source: Hall, Johnson, Wysocki and Kepner (2002, p. 2). Figure 1. The Additive Effect of Transformational Leadership. Idealized influence is about building confidence and trust and providing a role model that followers seek to emulate (Bono & Judge, 2004, p. 901; Simic, 1998, p. 52; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). Leaders are admired, respected, and trusted (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003, p. 208). Confidence in the leader provides a foundation for accepting (radical) organizational change. That is, followers who are sure of the virtues of their leader will be less likely to resist proposals for change from her/him. Clearly, idealized influence is linked to charisma (Gellis, 2001, p. 18). Charismatic leadership is a characteristic of transformational leadership and depends on leaders as well as followers for its expression (Kelly, 2003). The link between charismatic and transformational leadership is clearest during times of crisis within an organization such as when Lee Iacocca took over and resurrected the ailing Chrysler Corporation in the 1970s and 1980s (Kelly, 2003). Inspirational motivation is related to idealized influence but whereas charisma is held to motivate individuals, inspirational leadership is about motivating the entire organization to, for example, follow a new idea. Transformational leaders make clear an appealing view of the future, offer followers the opportunity to see meaning in their work, and challenge them with high standards. They encourage followers to become part of the overall organizational culture and environment (Kelly, 2003; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). This might be achieved through motivational speeches and conversations and other public displays of optimism and enthusiasm, highlighting positive outcomes, and stimulating teamwork (Simic, 1998, p. 52). Martin Luther Kings I have a dream speech and US President John F. Kennedys vision of putting a man on the moon by 1970 stand out as exceptional examples of this characteristic (Yukl, 1989, p. 221). Through these sorts of means, transformational leaders encourage their followers to imagine and contribute to the development of attractive, alternative futures (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003, p. 208). Intellectual stimulation involves arousing and changing followers awareness of problems and their capacity to solve those problems (Bono & Judge, 2004; Kelly, 2003). Transformational leaders question assumptions and beliefs and encourage followers to be innovative and creative, approaching old problems in new ways (Barbuto, 2005). They empower followers by persuading them to propose new and controversial ideas without fear of punishment or ridicule (Stone,

Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). They impose their own ideas judiciously and certainly not at any cost (Simic, 2003, p. 52). Individualized consideration involves responding to the specific, unique needs of followers to ensure they are included in the transformation process of the organization (Simic, 1998, p. 52). People are treated individually and differently on the basis of their talents and knowledge (Shin & Zhou, 2003, p. 704) and with the intention of allowing them to reach higher levels of achievement than might otherwise have been achieved (Chekwa, 2001, p. 5; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). This might take expression, for example, through expressing words of thanks or praise, fair workload distributions, and individualized career counseling, mentoring and professional development activities. Clearly then, besides having an overarching view of the organization and its trajectory, the transformational leader must also comprehend those things that motivate followers individually (Simic, 2003, p. 52). In summary: the transformational leader articulates the vision in a clear and appealing manner, explains how to attain the visions, acts confidently and optimistically, expresses confidence in the followers, emphasizes values with symbolic actions, leads by example, and empowers followers to achieve the vision (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 4). That transformational leadership is successful has been demonstrated by studies in a diverse range of professional and cultural settings, including military, schools and corporations (Bryant, 2003, p. 36). However, in their recent study of traditionality in Taiwan and the United States, Spreitzer, Perttula & Xin (2005) make it clear that while transformational leadership is effective regardless of culture, the level of effectiveness depends to some extent on cultural values. People with traditional cultural values see weaker links between transformational leadership and leader effectiveness than those with less traditional values. Transformational leadership has also been demonstrated to result in a high level of follower motivation and commitment and well-aboveaverage organizational performance, especially under conditions of crisis or uncertainty (Bryant, 2003, p. 36). As Carlson and Perrewe (1995, p. 834) observe, major changes in the organizations mission, strategies and level of follower commitment are likely to emerge as a result of transformational leadership. Successful Transformational Leaders Although the idea of transformational leadership is relatively recent, people who have demonstrated the characteristics of this form of leadership have existed for many years. For instance, Yates (2002) argues that Genghis Khan was a transformational leader who, during the late 12th and early 13th centuries, united fiercely independent Mongol tribes to ultimately create one of the largest land empires ever seen. Other transformational leaders include Christine Nixon, the current Police Chief Commissioner in the Australian state of Victoria, who is popularly understood to have transformed the culture of that police force for the good, and Sir Richard Branson, responsible for international Virgin enterprises (Lussier & Achua, 2004). The Future of Transformational Leadership And so what is the future of transformational leadership? There seems to be an emerging orthodoxy in the literature favoring a blend of transactional and transformational leadership (e.g., Bryant, 2003; Gellis, 2001; Hoyt & Blascovich, 2003). However, Sanders, Hopkins and Geroy (2003) propose an extension to both through what they call transcendental leadership. Their model suggests three structural levels of leadership accomplishment, these being transactional,

transformational, and transcendental, and they suggest that a leaders development along three dimensions of spirituality consciousness (mind), moral character (heart) and faith (soul) is associated with these levels of leadership accomplishment. They argue for the need to society and organizations to recognize the need for and embrace spirituality. Conclusion Through charisma, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation, transformational leaders have great potential to promote performance beyond expectations and to effect enormous changes within individuals and organizations. It appears to a be a form of leadership well-suited to these current times characterized by uncertainty, global turbulence and organizational instability. References Barbuto, J.E. (Jnr) (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership: a test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4), 26-40. Bass, B.M. (1990a). Bass & Stodgills Handbook of Leadership. Theory, Research and Managerial Applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1990b). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 13, pp. 26-40. Bass, B.M. (1997). The ethics of transformational leadership. KLSP: Transformational Leadership, Working Papers. Retrieved August 3, 2006, from
http://www.academy.umd.edu/publications/klspdocs/bbass_pl.htm

Bryant, S.E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4), pp. 32-44. Carlson, D.S. & Perrewe, P.L. (1995). Institutionalization of organizational ethics through transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(10), pp. 829-839. Judge, T.A. & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a metaanalytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89/5, pp. 755-768. Kelly, M.L. (2003, January 1). Academic advisers as transformational leaders. The Mentor. Retrieved August 3, 2006, from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/030101mk.htm Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), p. 112. Downloaded 12 November, 2008 www.leadingtoday.org/weleadinlearning/transformationalleadership.htm - 82k