Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership where a leader works with teams or followers beyond their immediate self-interests to identify needed change, creating a vision to guide the change through influence, inspiration, and executing the change in tandem with committed members of a group; This change in self-interests elevates the follower’s levels of maturity and ideals, as well as their concerns for the achievement. it is an integral part of the Full Range Leadership Model. Transformational leadership is when leader behaviors influence followers and inspire them to perform beyond their perceived capabilities. Transformational leadership inspires people to achieve unexpected or remarkable results. It gives workers autonomy over specific jobs, as well as the authority to make decisions once they have been trained. This induces a positive change in the followers attitudes and the organization as a whole. Transformational leaders typically perform four distinct behaviors, also known as the four I’s. These behaviors are inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration.
Transformational leadership serves to enhance the motivation, morale, and job performance of followers through a variety of mechanisms; these include connecting the follower’s sense of identity and self to a project and to the collective identity of the organization; being a role model for followers in order to inspire them and to raise their interest in the project; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, which allows the leader to align followers with tasks that enhance their performance. It is also important to understand the qualities a transformational leadership can bring to a work organization. Transformational leadership enhances commitment, involvement, loyalty, and performance of followers. Followers exert extra effort to show support to the leader, emulate the leader to emotionally identify with him/her, maintain obedience without losing any sense of self esteem. Transformational leaders are strong in the abilities to adapt to different situations, share a collective consciousness, self-manage, and be inspirational while leading a group of employees.
Inspirational motivation is when the leader inspires their followers to achieve. This leader sets high and reasonable goals for their followers and their organization. They inspire commitment and they create a shared vision for their organization. Leaders that utilize inspirational motivation motivate followers extrinsically and intrinsically, and they are able to articulate their expectations clearly. Inspirational motivation is closely tied to productivity. Productivity leads directly to having a source of worth, and could be considered both inspirational and visionary, leading to a positive emotional impact on that leader’s followers.
Idealized influence is when the leader acts as a strong role model for their organization and leads by example. These types of leaders consider the needs of their followers and prioritize their needs. They typically have loads of commitment and are very ethical. Followers of these leaders typically try to emulate their leader as they tend to identify with them easily. When subordinates try to emulate their leader, emotional attachments tend to form. Although controversial, Adolf Hitler would be an example of a leader that had profound emotional impact on his subordinates.
Intellectual stimulation is when the leader encourages their followers to think for themselves. These leaders are creative, innovative, and are very open to new ideas. They tend to be tolerant of their followers’ mistakes, and even encourage them as they believe they promote growth and improvement within the organization. These leaders create learning opportunities for their followers and abandon obsolete practices.
Individualized consideration is when the leader establishes a strong relationship with their followers. These leaders act as a caring supportive resource for their followers and their organization. They mentor their followers and allocate their time to developing their followers potential. One of the ways in which leaders can develop their followers is by delegating specific tasks that will foster an individual’s development.
Measurement
One of the ways in which transformational leadership is measured is through use of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), a survey which identifies different leadership characteristics based on examples and provides a basis for leadership training. Early development was limited because the knowledge in this area was primitive, and as such, finding good examples for the items in the questionnaire was difficult. Subsequent development on the MLQ led to the current version of the survey, the MLQ5X.
The current version of the MLQ5X includes 36 items that are broken down into 9 scales with 4 items measuring each scale. Subsequent validation work by John Antonakis and his colleagues provided strong evidence supporting the validity and reliability of the MLQ5X. Indeed, Antonakis went on to confirm the viability of the proposed nine-factor MLQ model, using two very large samples. Although other researchers have still been critical of the MLQ model, since 2003 no one has been able to provide dis-confirming evidence of the theorized nine-factor model with such large sample sizes as those published by Antonakis.
In regards to transformational leadership, the first 5 components – Idealized Attributes, Idealized Behaviors, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration – are considered to be transformational leadership behaviors.
Effectiveness as compared to other leadership styles
Studies have shown that transformational leadership styles are associated with positive outcomes in relation to other leadership styles. It is suggested that transformational leadership augments transactional in predicating effects on follower satisfaction and performance. According to studies performed by Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam, productivity (or Idealized Influence) was found to be a variable that was most strongly related to leader effectiveness among MLQ scales. Other studies show that transformational leadership is positively associated with employee outcomes including commitment, role clarity, and well-being. However, the effectiveness of transformational leadership varies by the situational contexts. For example, it can be more effective when applied to smaller, privately held firms than complex organizations based on its outreach effect with members of the organization. However, it can be concluded that transformational leadership has a positive effect on organizational effectiveness. This is because transformational leaders can encourage and facilitate change in their subordinates and encourage their development and creativity.
Transformational leadership focuses on discrepancy creation. Transformational leaders motivate employees to go above and beyond to surpass prior goal levels.
Transactional leadership
In contrast to transformational leadership, transactional leadership styles focus on the use of rewards and punishments in order to achieve compliance from followers. According to Burns, the transforming approach creates significant change in the life of people and organizations. It redesigns perceptions and values, and changes expectations and aspirations of employees. Unlike in the transactional approach, it is not based on a “give and take” relationship, but on the leader’s personality, traits and ability to make a change through example, articulation of an energizing vision and challenging goals.
Transformational leaders look towards changing the future to inspire followers and accomplish goals, whereas transactional leaders seek to maintain the status quo, not aiming for progress. Transactional leaders frequently get results from employees by using authority, while transformational leaders have a true vision for their company, are able to inspire people, and are entirely committed to their work. In summary, transformational leaders focus on vision, use charisma and enthusiasm for motivation, and are proactive in nature. On the other hand, transactional leaders focus on goals, use rewards and punishments for motivation, and are reactive in nature.
The MLQ does test for some transactional leadership elements – Contingent Reward and Management-by-Exception – and the results for these elements are often compared to those for the transformational elements tested by the MLQ. Studies have shown transformational leadership practices lead to higher satisfaction with leader among followers and greater leader effectiveness, while one transactional practice (contingent reward) lead to higher follower job satisfaction and leader job performance.
Laissez-faire leadership
In a laissez-faire leadership style, a person may be given a leadership position without providing leadership, which leaves followers to fend for themselves. This leads to subordinates having a free hand in deciding policies and methods.
Studies have shown that while transformational leadership styles are associated with positive outcomes, laissez-faire leadership is associated with negative outcomes, especially in terms of follower satisfaction with leader and leader effectiveness. Also, other studies comparing the leadership styles of men and women have shown that female leaders tend to be more transformational with their leadership styles, whereas laissez-faire leadership is more prevalent in male leaders.
Comparison of Styles among Public and Private Companies
Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996) conducted a meta-analysis combining data from studies in both the private and public sector. The results indicated a hierarchy of leadership styles and related subcomponents. Transformational Leadership characteristics were the most effective; in the following order of effectiveness from most to least: productive-inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. Transactional Leadership was the next most effective; in the following order of effectiveness from most to least: contingent reward and managing-by-exception. Laissez Faire leadership does not intentionally intervene, and as such, is not measured, and has no effectiveness score.
Factors affecting use
Phipps suggests that the individual personality of a leader heavily affects their leadership style, specifically with regard to the following components of the Five-factor model of personality: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion/introversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism/emotional stability (OCEAN).
Phipps also proposed that all the Big Five dimensions would be positively related to transformational leadership. Openness to experience allows the leader to be more accepting of novel ideas and thus more likely to stimulate the follower intellectually. Conscientious leaders are achievement oriented and thus more likely to motivate their followers to achieve organizational goals. Extraverted and agreeable individuals are more outgoing and pleasant, respectively, and more likely to have successful interpersonal relationships. Thus, they are more likely to influence their followers and to be considerate towards them. Emotionally stable leaders would be better able to influence their followers because their stability would enable them to be better role models to followers and to thoroughly engage them in the goal fulfillment process.
A specific example of cultural background affecting the effectiveness of transformational leadership would be Indian culture, where a nurturant-task style of leadership has been shown to be an effective leadership style. Singh and Bhandarker (1990) demonstrated that effective transformational leaders in India are likes heads of Indian families taking personal interest in the welfare of their followers. Leaders in Indian organizations are therefore more likely to exhibit transformational behaviors if their followers are more self-effacing in approaching the leaders. It is also hypothesized in general that subordinates’ being socialized to be less assertive, self-confident, and independent would enhance superiors’ exhibition of transformational leadership.
Follower characteristics, combined with their perceptions of the leader and their own situation, did appear to moderate the connection between transformational leadership and subordinates’ willingness to take charge and be good organizational citizens. For instance, if subordinates in a work group perceive their leader to be prototypical of them, then transformational leadership would have less of an impact on their willingness to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors. Likewise, if subordinates are goal oriented and possess a traditional view of the organizational hierarchy, they tend to be less affected by transformational leadership. Self-motivated employees are less likely to need transformational leaders to prod them into action, while “traditionalists” tend to see positive organizational citizenship as something expected given their roles as followers—not something they need to be “inspired” to do.
Evidence suggests that the above sets of factors act, in essence, as both inhibitors of and substitutes for transformational leadership. As inhibitors, the presence of any of these factors—either independently or especially collectively—could make the presence of a transformational leader “redundant” since followers’ positive behavior would instead be sparked by their own motivations or perceptions. On the other hand, when these factors are not present (e.g., employees in a work group do not see their leader as “one of us”), then transformational leadership is likely to have a much greater impact on subordinates. In essence, when such “favorable conditions” are not present, managers—and the organizations they work for—should see a better return on investment from transformational leadership.
It was shown that leader continuity enhanced the effect of transformational leadership on role clarity and commitment, indicating that it takes time before transformational leaders actually have an effect on employees. Furthermore, co-worker support enhanced the effect on commitment, reflecting the role of followers in the transformational leadership process. However, there are also factors that would serve to balance the exhibition of transformational leadership, including the organizational structure, ongoing change, the leaders’ working conditions, and the leaders’ elevated commitment of organizational value.
Outcomes
Bernard Bass in Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations states some leaders are only able to extract competent effort from their employees, while others inspire extraordinary effort. Transformational leadership is the key (Bass, 1985).
Implementing transformational leadership has many positive outcomes not only in the workplace but in other situations as well. Evidence shows that each of the previously talked about four components of transformational leadership are significantly associated with positive emotions and outcomes in the workplace as well as in team projects performed online. One recent study indicates that these four components are significantly associated with higher job satisfaction and the effectiveness of the employees. Both intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation are associated with a higher degree of positive emotions such as enthusiasm, happiness, and a sense of pride in the follower’s life and work.
Companies seem to be transforming everywhere; growth and culture change are a focus within their core strategies. It is not necessarily about cost structure, but about finding new ways to grow. Models need to be produced to help leaders create the future. Kent Thirty, CEO of DaVita, chose the name DaVita, Italian for “giving life,” and settled on a list of core values that included service excellence, teamwork, accountability, and fun. A transformational leader inspires and follows the employee’s self-interests, while a transactional leader manages and reinforces generally without employee consideration. Aligning the organization into transformational leaders by committing, being involved, and developing with the employees will lead to higher job satisfaction and motivation.
When transformational leadership was used in a nursing environment, researchers found that it led to an increase in organizational commitment. A separate study examined that way that transformational leadership and transactional leadership compare when implemented into an online class. The results of this study indicate that transformational leadership increases cognitive effort while transactional leadership decreases it.
Examples
Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandela used transformational leadership principles while working to abolish apartheid and enforce change in South Africa. In 1995, he visited Betsie Verwoerd, the widow of the architect of apartheid Hendrik Verwoerd, at her home in Orania. Orania was an Afrikaner homeland and a striking anachronistic symbol of racial separation, and Mandela’s recurring emphasis on forgiveness contributed toward the healing the prejudices of South Africa and as vast influence as a leader. In 2000, he was quoted as saying, “For all people who have found themselves in the position of being in jail and trying to transform society, forgiveness is natural because you have no time to be retaliative.” This illustrates a common approach in the narratives of transformational leadership, of describing a collective or corporate effort in individualised terms, and pointing to the responsibility or opportunity for individuals to commit to making the effort a success. Such an approach is seen in community organising.
He also set an example for others to follow in terms of sacrifice and philanthropy. Schoemaker describes one such instance:
“One such leader received a call from Mandela’s office requesting that he accompany the President to the Eastern Cape. This leader was less than enthusiastic and pleaded that he had an appointment around mid-day clashing with Mandela’s request. But there was no denying Mandela, so the leader agreed to go—but first consulted with his financial director to set a reasonable limit on the size of the anticipated donation request. They settled on 500,000 Rand, or about $50,000 in those days…upon landing, about 80,000 black school children—all adorned in crisp white shirts—simultaneously bowed to acknowledge the great man’s arrival. As they were climbing down from the helicopter, Mandela planted his hand firmly in his guest’s back and said, ‘Now, I hope you are not going to disappoint me?’ The business leader decided in that instance to double the donation…how could he tell a man who sacrificed as much as Mandela that he couldn’t afford to be more generous?”
Future
The evolution of transformational leadership in the digital age is tied to the development of organizational leadership in an academic setting. As organizations move from position-based responsibilities to task-based responsibilities, transformational leadership is redefined to continue to develop individual commitment to organizational goals by aligning these goals with the interests of their leadership community. The academic community is a front-runner in this sense of redefining transformational leadership to suit these changes in job definition.
The future of transformational leadership is also related to political globalization and a more homogenous spectrum of economic systems under which organizations find themselves operating. Cultural and geographical dimensions of transformational leadership become blurred as globalization renders ethnically specific collectivist and individualistic effects of organizational behavior obsolete in a more diversified workplace.
The concept of transformational leadership needs further clarification, especially when a leader is labelled as a transformational or transactional leader. While discussing Jinnah’s leadership style, Yousaf (2015) argued that it is not the number of followers, but the nature of the change that indicates whether a leader is transformational or transactional.
