weLEAD
Online Magazine
leadingtoday.org
Copyright
2006 ã weLEAD, Inc.
April
2006 Editorial
Understanding Transformational Leadership
Editor of the E-Journal of Organizational Learning and
Leadership
The history of the
economic development of America includes biographies of “great men” such as
Andrew Carnegie or Henry Ford. These
giants of industry single-handedly tapped their personal talent bases to
perform as inventors, entrepreneurs, financiers, politicians and even social
engineers. They functioned as business
leaders during times when straight-forward approaches in hierarchical organizations,
along with some good fortune, worked well.
While it made sense to rely on the “great man theory” as a basic tenet
of leadership practice in the nineteenth century, in current times, this is no
longer the case. Hence, leadership
theory has changed through the decades and centuries. Van Wart provides an
excellent description of the historical evolution of leadership as moving away
from the “Great Man Theory,” to focusing on leadership traits in the early
twentieth century, then to identifying leadership behaviors and influence
strategies mid-century, and finally to relating leadership practice to specific
conceptual tenets, such as servant leadership, stewardship, and
transformational leadership in the 1990’s and beyond.1 In essence, what has occurred is that
leadership theory has varied over time in a way that allows both private and
public sector leaders to consider new understandings and research and then to
practice leadership within current financial, societal and political
realities. Leadership theory, therefore,
has evolved with thought development and within altering contextual
frames.
Howell and Avolio state that leadership
today is defined by “uncertainty, change and increased competition.”2 Van Wart parallels this definition for the
public sector as well, “Clearly it [the public sector] is changing in more
fundamental ways than at any time in the last half century.”3 It is in this context that transformational
leadership theory has become popular. Barbuto and Burbach explain the
development of this theory originated in work by Downton
(1973) and Burns (1978).4 In
general, the theory of transformational leadership is described as a process
whereby leaders and followers interact in order to increase human potential and
organizational contributions, based on a moral foundation. In short, transformational leadership has the
effect of working collaboratively, working smart and working ethically. In contrast to the Great Man Theory of
leadership, which measures success based on results, regardless of the means
used to attain those results, transformational leadership focuses on the
process of leading, and then stresses the benefits to the organization. It requires an interdependence between
leaders and followers, whereby the use of coercive power is abandoned in favor
of empowerment in order to enhance culture and increase organizational
effectiveness.
Bass is recognized as presenting one of the
first explicit explanations of transformational leadership. Later, he refined his work with Avolio to
include four behaviors: idealized influence, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Bass and Avolio describe transformational
leaders as those who, “. . . . change their culture by first understanding it
and then realigning the organization’s culture with a new vision and a revision
of its shared assumptions, values and norms,” and also as those who, “. . . .
integrate creative insight, persistence and energy, intuition and sensitivity
to the needs of others to ‘forge the strategy-culture alloy’ for their
organizations.”5 Clearly,
transformational leadership is about a purposeful process of developing
interpersonal organizational relationships coherent with culture and mission in
order to achieve desired results. The
organizational effect of transformational leadership is explained by Prabhakar,
“. . . . but a truly great leader [transformational leader] inspires confidence
within the people they [sic] lead to exceed their normal performance
level.”6
Several authors have contributed to transformational
leadership theory and describe it consistently as an interactive learning
process. Leithwood thought about this
theory in regard to school leadership and concluded that leaders needed to
collaborate, share decision making and encourage change in others in order to
be transformational.7 Wilmore and Thomas describe this interactive
process of leadership behaviors as:
1.
Defining the need for change.
2.
Creating new visions and muster commitment to visions.
3.
Concentrating on long-term goals.
4.
Inspiring followers to transcend their own interests for
higher-order goals.
5.
Changing the organization to accommodate their vision rather
than work within the existing one.
6.
Mentoring followers to take greater responsibility for their
own development and that of others.8
Transformational leadership, while
multi-dimensional, has two substantial elements, namely, ethics and change
navigation. Kanugo studied the moral aspects of transformational leadership and
found that “Transformational leaders have an organic worldview and moral
altruistic motives grounded in a deontological perspective.”9 This means that such leaders view
leadership as a systemic process of development while considering the
implications of contextual change. These
transformational leaders are ready and eager to adapt their perspectives and
approaches, but, paradoxically, they remain steadfast ethically and express
those chosen ethics by identifying and serving the needs of others. Mendonca describes the impact of the
relationship between ethics and transformational leadership, “Organizational
effectiveness on an enduring basis is greatly enhanced by the
self-transformation of the leader and of the followers that is inherent in
ethical leadership.”10 In
other words, transformational leadership and ethical leadership are
inextricably intertwined.
Regarding the element of change navigation
and transformational leadership, the work of Borins is helpful, as he describes
the arguments both for and against change agency in the public sector. Implicit in the description of
transformational leadership is the net result of organizational change. Borins states that organizational change is
often resisted and not well understood, especially in the public sector, and,
hence, a distinction needs to be made between ineffective and effective change
navigation. In contrast to the
ineffective approaches of “loose cannons, rule breakers, self-promoters, power
politicians, and manipulators of public authority for private gain,” he
examined the behaviors of effective change agency. Those behaviors match closely with the
descriptions of transformational leaders as, “. . . . innovators (leaders)
demonstrated integrity in innovation in numerous ways: by proactively solving problems before they
became crises; by taking opposition seriously and attempting to deal with it
forthrightly through persuasion or accommodation, rather than through power
politics; by developing a clear vision of an innovation and staying focused on
that vision; and by objectively evaluating in innovation to see if it is
working.”11 Goldring,
Crowson, Laird, and Berk break down the element of change agency of
transformational leadership in an interesting way. They advocate for a shift to transition
leadership first, whereby leaders can prepare the environment by “unmaking of
policy and procedures in order to remake them anew,” and then moving into
transformational approaches.12
They believe that this modified approach allows for some equilibrium
between tradition and transformation and helps to facilitate effective change.
Transformational leaders are often
described in contrast to transactional ones (although both approaches are
appropriate) as Bass and Avolio explain, “Essentially, transactional leaders
develop exchanges or agreements with their followers, pointing out what the
followers will receive if they do something right as well as wrong. They work within the existing culture,
framing their decisions and actions based on the operative norms and procedures
characterizing their respective organizations.”13 In contrast to the Great Man Theory,
transactional leaders do recognize the need for followers, but like the Great
Man Theory also emphasize results by “contracting” conditions. In turn, transformational leaders believe the
process of getting to the results is equally as valuable as transactional
leaders do, yet see their role, within founded ethical parameters, as
empowering others to freely contribute to the process. In doing so, more human potential is realized
because a “free choice” culture (not in a laisse faire sense, but in a
transformational sense) yields more intrinsic and extrinsic motivation than a
“forced choice” culture does. Friedman
describes how Ford Motor Company is choosing to develop transformational
leaders, “The chief way that Ford’s Leadership Development Center is fomenting
revolution is by creating transformational leaders—men and women who know how
to get things done in ways that use the talents of their people for maximum
business impact.” 14
Lou Gerstner,
former CEO of IBM and RJR/Nabisco, succinctly describes the realities of
transformational leadership as an ethical process of cultural change
navigation:
So,
transformational leadership aligns with transactional leadership on getting
results. It differs based on
assumptions, process 
and principles... changing the attitude and behavior
of... people is very, very hard to accomplish.
Business schools don't teach you how to do it. You can't lead the
revolution from the splendid isolation of corporate headquarters. You can't simply give a couple of speeches or
write a new credo for the company and declare that the new culture has taken
hold. You can't mandate it, you can't engineer it. What you can do is create
the conditions for transformation. You can provide incentives. You can
define the marketplace realities and goals. But then you have to trust.
In fact, in the end, management doesn't change culture. Management invites the
workforce itself to change the culture.15
In these times, great leaders are needed,
those who understand effectual change navigation and the ethical means by which
to remain competitive. By all measures,
current leaders must be more able than those who previously operated under the
Great Person Theory of leadership.
Transformational leaders must be great and greater!
References:
1Van Wart, M. (2003).
Public-sector leadership theory:
An assessment [Electronic version].
Public
Administration Review 63(2), 214-28.
2Howell, J. M. & Avolio, B. J.
(1993). Transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business unit
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.
3Van Wart, M. (1996).
“Reinventing” in the public sector:
The critical role of value restructuring [Electronic version]. Public Administration Quarterly, 19(4), 456-.
4Barbuto, J. E. & Burbach, M. E. (2006). The emotional
intelligence of transformational leaders:
A field study of elected officials [Electronic version]. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 51-64.
5Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J.
(1993). Transformational leadership
and organizational culture [Electronic version]. Public Administration Quarterly 17(1), 112-.
6Prabhakar, G. P. (2005).
An empirical study reflecting the importance of
transformational leadership on project success across twenty-eight nations
[Electronic version]. Project Management Journal 36(4) 53-60.
7Leithwood, K. (1992).
The move toward transformational leadership. Educational
Leadership, 49(5), 8-12.
8Wilmore, E. & Thomas, C. (2001).
The new century: is it too late
for transformational leadership? [Electronic version].
Educational Horizons, 79(3),
115-123.
9Kanungo, R. N. (2001).
Ethical values of transactional and transformational
leaders [Electronic version]. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 257-.
10Mendonca, M. (2001).
Preparing for ethical leadership in organizations
[Electronic version]. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 266-.
11Borins, S.
(2000). Loose cannons and rule
breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidence about innovative public managers [Electronic
version]. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 498-507.
12Goldring, E., Crowson, R., Laird,
D., Berk, R. (2003). Transition
leadership in a shifting policy environment [Electronic version]. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 473-488.
13Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J.
(1993). Transformational leadership
and organizational culture [Electronic version]. Public Administration Quarterly 17(1), 112-.
14Friedman, S. D. (2001).
What is it about leadership? [Electronic version]. Training
and Development, 55(3), 21-45.
15Gerstner, L. V., Jr. (2002). Who
Says Elephants Can’t Dance. New
York: HarperCollins Publishers,
Inc. p. 187
Comments to: flumerfe@leadingtoday.org
About the author: