Transformational leadership and Other Leadership Theories

This paper will refer to Bass (1985) as the most cited source for transformational leadership theory to discuss the relationship between transformational leadership with other theories.

Transformational Leadership theory

The essence of the transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985) is the distinction between transformational and transactional leadership that were defined in terms of the component behaviors used to influence followers and the effect of the leader on follower. With transformational leadership, the followers feel trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect toward the leader, and they are motivated to do more than they originally expected to do. The following are the ways of leader to transform and motivate the followers.

• Making them more aware of the importance of task outcomes
• Inducing them to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the organization or team
• Activating their higher order needs.

In his revised theory, Bass proposed four transformational behaviors as follows.

1. Idealized influence
2. Individualized consideration
3. Inspirational motivation
4. Intellectual stimulation (added in the revision)

The influence processes in transformational leadership theory are not clearly explained but inferred from the description. From those inferred information, we can concluded the following influence processes in transformational leadership.

• Internalization process is inferred in inspirational motivation because it includes the articulation of an appealing vision that relates task objectives to follower values and ideals
• Personal identification is inferred in idealized influence as this process results in attributions of charisma by followers to the leader (Bass argued that charisma is a necessary ingredient of transformational leadership, but by itself it is not sufficient to account for the transformational process).

In relation to the facilitating conditions, Bass argued that transformation leadership is effective in any situation or culture  The theory does not specify any conditions under which authentic transformational leadership is irrelevant or ineffective(Yukl 255). The criterion of leadership effectiveness has included a variety of different types of measures. The evidence supports the conclusion that in most if not all situations, some aspects of transformational leadership are relevant. Exception of situational condition: unstable environment, organic structure, entrepreneurial culture, boundary-spanning units over the technical core; increase the likelihood to be transformational.

            In term of employees needs, transformational leaders incorporate and amplify the impact of transactional leadership (Waldman, Bass, & Einstein, 1985). They recognize and exploit those employee higher-level needs that surpass immediate self interests. By appealing to these elevated needs, the transformational leader motivates employees to perform beyond initial performance goals and objectives (Bass, 1985)

            In term of manager-employee relationships relative to transactional, transformational manager-employee relationship would exhibits more stable influencing activity (greater satisfaction and more balanced).

Transformational and Trait-Based Universal Theories

Trait refers to people’s general characteristics, including capacities, motives, or patterns of behavior. Trait theories assert that leaders’ characteristics are different from nonleaders’. Ralph Stogdill (1948) identifies several categories of important leader traits: 

• Capacity (intelligence, alertness, verbal facility, originality, judgment)
•   Achievement (scholarship, knowledge, athletic accomplishments)
• Responsibility (dependability, initiative, persistence, aggressiveness, self confidence, desire to excel)
•   Participation ( activity, sociability, cooperation, adaptability, humor)
• Status (socioeconomic position, popularity)

            The relationship between trait-based universal theories and transformational leadership theory is the extent to which the two theories provide further insight into the leadership process (figure 1) through an expanded understanding of the leader. We know that traits alone are not sufficient for successful leadership but traits are important “preconditions” giving an individual the potential to be an effective leader.

Figure 1:

The role of Traits and Transformational Leadership Behavior in the Leadership Process

 

The relationship between the basic traits as general prerequisites and the four characteristics of transformational leadership (Bass, 1986) shows that both concepts are closely related as described below.

-          Idealized influence through leader’s charisma is a fundamental trait that is required in the transformational process. This trait could be the extension of the leader status or popularity.

-          Inspirational motivation relates to the capacity (intelligence, verbal facility), achievement (e.g. knowledge) and participation as prerequisite traits (e.g. cooperation, activity).

-          Individual consideration relates to the participation (e.g. sociability, cooperation) as required traits for transformational leaders.

-          Intellectual stimulation is clearly relates to the capacity (intelligence) and responsibility (initiative) traits.

In addition, Jennifer M. George (Pierce 82) suggests another important trait, called emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence is “the ability to perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotion and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual growth (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). George argued that feelings (i.e., moods and emotions) play an important role in the leadership process. George suggests that the strength of the emotional intelligence as an important trait that affects leader effectiveness. The four major aspects of emotional intelligence include

• The appraisal and expression of emotion
• The use of emotion to enhance cognitive processes and decision making
• Knowledge about emotions
• Management of emotions

            In summary, transformational leadership theory has a close relation to the trait-based universal theories in term of traits as prerequisite capabilities that the leader should acquire to be transformational.   

  

Transformational leadership theory and “behavior-based” universal theories

As described above, transformational leadership theory specifically address four behaviors that characterized the transformational leader. So, it is clear that transformational leadership theory is the extension of the behavior based universal theory that known as Ohio and Michigan’s theories.

Both behavior-based and transformational leadership theories are important aspects that moderate the leader within the system of leadership process (Figure 2).

Figure 2

The Role of Transformational Leadership Behavior in the Leadership Proces

Transformational behavior is a specific behavior that is necessary for leaders to augment the impact of transactional leader behaviors on employee outcome variable because employee feel trust and respect toward the leader and they are motivated to do more than they are expected to do (Yukl, 1989). The term transformational has been broadly defined to include almost any type of effective leadership, regardless of the underlying influence processes. The label may refer to the transformation of individual followers or to the entire organization. All of studies about specific behaviors that associate with transformational  leadership, share the common perspective that effective leaders transform or change the basic values, beliefs, and attitudes of followers so that they are willing to perform beyond the minimum levels specified by the organization.

In general the empirical results have verified the impact of transformational leader behaviors on employee attitudes, effort, and “in-role” performance. For example: Bass (1985) reported that transformational leader behaviors are positively related to employees’ satisfaction, self-reported effort, and job performance.

Graham (1988) noted further that the most important effects of transformational leaders should be on extra role performance, rather than in-role performance. Podsakoff and MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) indicated that the effects of these leader behaviors on organizational citizenship (example of extra role) are indirect rather than direct. They are mediated by follower’s satisfaction and trust in their leader. They found that trust influenced OCB, but employee satisfaction did not.

            The four dimension of leader behavior of Bowers, 1964 (support, interaction facilitation, goal emphasis, and work facilitation) will be used to examine the relationship with the six key behaviors associated with transformational leaders (Pierce 373) below.

1.      Identifying and articulating a vision. Part of this behavior (aimed at identifying new opportunities) was not identified in Bowers dimensions, but some other part including developing, articulating, and inspiring others relate to the dimension of interaction facilitation (with the absence of vision that had not been recognized at that time)

2.      Providing an appropriate model. Bowers was not explicitly identified this behavior but we can classify it as the characteristic of interaction facilitation and support dimensions.

3.      Fostering the acceptance of group goals. This behavior relates to the goal emphasis dimension with emphasis on within group cooperation.

4.      High performance expectations. This behavior relates to the interaction facilitation with emphasis on high employees’ performance expectations.

5.      Providing individualized support. This behavior has a similar meaning with support dimension and somewhat implied in work facilitation.

6.      Intellectual stimulation. Although Bowers did not specify this behavior, but it could be implied in support dimension.

            In addition, transformational leadership theory emphasizes the importance of emotional reactions by followers to leaders, whereas the earlier theories emphasized rational-calculative aspects of leader-follower interaction. The new theories also acknowledge the importance of symbolic behavior and the role of the leader in making events meaningful for followers. The earlier did not recognize that symbolic processes and management of meaning are as important as management of things.

As a summary, we conclude that the transformational leadership is the extension of the behavior based universal theory with emphasis to the particular behavior that results in extra role performance (e.g. organizational citizenship behavior).