Which of the following has been associated with transformational leadership

Transformational leadership model

Transformational leadership model (TLM) is a tool that has been developed from the basis of transformational leadership (Nissinen, 2001; Takala, 2002; Takala et al., 2005, 2006a; Tommila et al., 2008). This theoretical framework we use has been adopted from educational psychology and leadership training based on the four dimensions of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985) because the model has been designed to enhance leadership coaching in any operational environment (Takala et al., 2008b, 2013; Takala and Uusitalo, 2012). Fig. 11.1 is the transformational leadership model which is adapted from the original research of Takala et al. (2006a), which explains that coaching applies to the model as a bridge between theory and practice (Takala et al., 2008b).

Professional skills is the foundation (potential) for leaders. Leadership behavior consists of two main groups of behaviors—passive and controlling behavior—and the four behavioral components that originate from Avolio (1999) and Bass (1985, 1998): first, individualized consideration—connecting with each individual, understanding their needs, drawing out their strengths, and developing and satisfying their personal goals; second, intellectual stimulation—challenging followers to think differently and innovate new solutions to old problems; third, inspirational motivation—communicating a compelling vision and inspiring followers to reach their fullest potential; and fourth, building trust and confidence, which is developed from the original behavior of idealized influence—being a role model and involving followers to accomplish more than what they would do otherwise.

Transformational leadership theory

The theory of transformational leadership was developed a little later than charismatic leadership theory and also owed much to Weber and the work that he did with behavioural theory in organisations. Presented first by Bernard Bass, transformational theory rests less on the individual personal characteristics of the leader and more on their ability to motivate support by offering followers clearer views on the importance and value of designated outcomes (Bass 1985, p.l1). Leaders who are transformational have the ability to take their followers beyond self-interest and to generate enthusiasm for the sake of team, organisation or larger policy (Miner 2005, p.363). They are able to motivate people to do more than they had previously expected to do – to transform themselves and their productivity.

Charismatic and transformational processes are closely related but it is possible for a charismatic leader not to lead to transformational results. Self-interest may interfere or the charismatic leader may have personal goals that do not transform their organisation. Charisma, to some extent, is needed in a transformational leader simply because they are asking their followers to go beyond what is needed – this requires exceptional loyalty and thus some degree of charisma is likely to be required.

For the information professional and leader who may be placed into hierarchical situations that seem powerless, the notions of charismatic leadership and transformational leadership are important considerations. Though powerless in the conventional sense, they may in fact exert considerable influence and thus power by developing strong charismatic and/or transformational characteristics. By taking the opportunity to build relationships through their own personal people- skills, they may well prove to be strong leaders in their organisations and to carry many others within those organisations to greater achievement and recognition. Recognition can often gain increased regard within the organisation, bring more official recognition and in the longer term provide for their own as well as the teams’ future security. Perhaps oversimplifying things somewhat, a school library leader who presents their priorities clearly, attractively and persuasively on a regular basis is more likely to have increased budget and increased respect than one who does not. Their level of influence will depend to a considerable extent on charisma (there are other factors as well, but charisma is a critical one) and their ability to transform their organisation and the position of library in that organisation will depend on taking that charisma and combining it with clear, appealing and achievable goals.

To be visionary leaders in information, charismatic characteristics need to be fostered and developed, team-building and communication skills developed and strong relationships forged.

5 Transformational leadership

The concept of transformational leadership emerged in the 1970s and is often associated with the work of Downton (1973) and Burns (1978) who discuss the influencing mechanisms this approach to leadership brought in contrast to the more traditional transactional methods which were often more closely aligned with management. At its heart, transformational leadership is focussed on gaining followership and encouraging those following a leader to achieve the common purpose organisations aiming towards.

Whilst Burns work focussed on a political context, Bass and Riggio (2005) transferred the concept of transformational leadership to a business environment. This has subsequently created significant academic and practitioner research to support the potential impact such a leadership approach organisational success.

Bass and Riggio (2005) define transformational leadership as occurring when leaders broaden and elevate the interest of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and when they stir their employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group. Offering a similar view, Gumusluoglu and Ilsev (2009) note “transformational leaders of those leaders who transform followers' personal values and self-concepts, move them to higher levels of needs and aspirations, and raise the performance expectations of their followers”.

Put simply, transformational leadership can be considered a process that changes and transforms individuals and is focussed on treating followers as full human beings. The leader takes a role of influencing back and moves followers to accomplish more than is usually expected of them (Northouse, 2018).

Indeed, Bass and Riggio (2005) suggested that transformational leadership would motivate followers to do more than was expected of them in three ways:

raising followers’ levels of consciousness about the importance and value of specified and idealised goals,

getting followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the team or organisation,

moving followers to address higher-level needs.

In doing so, Northouse (2018) notes a range of personality characteristics and behaviours which are essential to enable effective transformation.

Personality characteristicsBehavioursDominantSets strong role modelDesire to influenceShows competenceConfidentArticulates goalsStrong valuesCommunicates high expectationsExpresses confidenceArouses motives

Bass and Riggio (2005) further conceptualised four components of transformational leadership, which include (i) idealised influence, (ii) inspirational motivation, (iii) intellectual stimulation, and (iv) individualised consideration.

Leaders displaying idealised influence have a strong sense of ethical practice and are driven to do the right thing. Indeed, they articulate their values and beliefs in all they do and carefully consider the moral and ethical consequences before making any decisions. In response, their followers admire, respect, and trust them.

Inspirational motivation promotes the role of the leader to provide meaning and challenge to those around them and behave in a way that motivates and inspires followers. In other words, it is the role of the leader to carefully articulate the future state and vision in a meaningful way to their followers. The leader subsequently encourages the development of a shared vision and clearly communicates and mutually agrees expectations to meet the vision. Within the spectrum of artificial intelligence (AI), current (2020) data suggest that only one in five management teams has incorporated some AI process and only one in 20 has extensively incorporated AI in their business model (Ransbotham et al., 2017). This suggests that AI is still at its early development stages to be fully understood and embraced by corporate and middle managers.

The third component, intellectual stimulation, is defined as the ability of transformational leaders to “stimulate their followers' efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways” (Bass and Riggio, 2005).

As such, transformational leaders encourage shared learning, creativity, and innovation. In particular, leaders and followers are encouraged to pursue their intellectual curiosity and to use their imaginations to generate new ideas and solutions (Shin and Zhou, 2003).

Finally, individualised consideration notes the need for a transformational leader to recognise the individual needs of their followers and make available appropriate developmental support though approaches such as coaching and mentoring. Yukl (2002) aligns such an approach to that of supportive leadership which has been defined as “showing consideration, acceptance, and concern for the needs and feelings of other people” (Yukl, 2002, p. 20).

A supportive leader will demonstrate behaviours including listening carefully, effectively managing the emotions of followers, showing concern for followers’ welfare and evidence of caring, and demonstrating consideration for the feelings of others and the provision of sympathy.

In a recent metaanalysis transformational leadership and its impacts, Hoch et al. (2018) report a positive relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment, increased loyalty and follower satisfaction, trust, empowerment, identification with the leader and group, and goal and value alignment.

Tse and Chiu (2014) and Gilmore et al. (2012) also note a direct correlation between the adoption of transformational leadership with organisational citizenship such as employees going the extra mile. Henker et al. (2015) additionally suggest a link with overall employee motivation.

4.7.3 Adaptive leadership as an applied approach

With the rapid rate of change, complexity, and uncertainty in the business intelligence industry, adaptive, transformational leadership is paramount to driving organizational success. The ability for organizations to mobilize and thrive in new business environments is critical, and the solutions to these challenges reside in the collective intelligence of leaders (Heifetz & Laurie, 2011). Adaptive leadership—an approach to command based on situation and factors like mission, strategy, etc.—is a trait requisite of successful leaders, however it is somewhat counterintuitive because leaders must be able to see a context for change or create one rather than respond to a need. Adaptive leadership is about leading change that enables the organization to thrive. It is the practice of mobilization, and it occurs through experimentation and requires diversity (Heifetz, Linsky, & Grashow, 2009).

Because adaptive and transformational leadership—wherein a leader is charged with identifying needed change and creating a vision to guide the change through inspiration—is individually considerate and provides followers with support, mentorship, and guidance (Bass & Riggio, 2006), it is tied to the construct of emotional intelligence. This connection between transformational leadership and emotional intelligence has been supported by several empirical studies that report a positive correlation between the two, with analysis indicating that both emotional intelligence and transformational leadership are emotion-laden constructs (Lindebaum & Cartwright, 2010). That said, the principal difference between these two theories is that emotional intelligence is applied primarily to the leader, while adaptive leadership is applied primarily to the organization. Adaptive leadership requires that a leader embrace a learning strategy to address challenges that are adaptive, or for which there are no known solutions and which require a shift in thinking (Granger & Hanover, 2012). This, in turn, denotes a need for emotional intelligence in the capacity to be self-aware and self-managing (Goleman, 2005). A transformational leader must shift perspectives in order to adapt to changes that are happening, and leverage emotional intelligence skills to motivate and inspire others to engage when confronting a challenge, adjusting values, changing perceptions, and nurturing new habits—or, behaving ethically (Heifetz & Laurie, 2011).

Styles that work

While an autocratic style worked in the industrial era and the post-Second World War era, when the economy was dependent on production from factories, and when managers were the boss and employees followed instructions, it is no longer the style of Western-world organizations, especially in libraries. There will always be managers or leaders in any organization who control, but it is not the norm, and ethnic-minority librarians should be aware of this. In many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern countries, leaders have the final say. In China, for example, historically speaking, leaders have had authoritarian leadership styles. Triandis (1993: 175) confirms this with the observation that a leader is “paternalistic, taking good care of his ingroup.” In many Asian and African cultures that are collectivist cultures, leaders are worshipped or feared to the point that they are not questioned. There is an emphasis on hierarchy. Authoritarianism is not the leadership style that is prevalent in the Anglo-Saxon culture of today, but there is no uniformity in style here either. The American leadership style encourages a collaborative effort from all employees in an organization regardless of their positions or titles, but in Australia, as Christina Gibson (1995: 274) states, “Australians indicated less emphasis on interaction facilitation and more emphasis on a directive style, which is more autocratic and benevolent.” In her article, in which she compares leadership qualities between four countries, Sweden, Norway, the US and Australia, Gibson believes individualism and masculinity to be more ingrained in Australians than in Americans, and traces this back to the history of ex-convicts having to be self-reliant in order to survive. This historical factor, along with geographical isolation, may have led Australians to prefer goal-oriented and directive leadership practices (ibid.: 273).

Today's work culture is knowledge based, and leaders and managers are managing educated, intelligent, and, in many cases, experienced workers. Autocracy as a leadership style will affect the longevity of employees in an organization's workforce. In the egalitarian work culture of libraries, leadership is a combination of styles and skills. Leaders are expected to be participative, authoritative yet democratic, to be able to balance tasks and people, and to be effective leaders in person and in a virtual environment, to be able to work with vendors, cataloguers, and publishers on a global scale, to work with librarians and staff from different cultures, and to be fiscally responsible. It is an overwhelming task that cannot be done without training and trial and error. As a minority librarian, it is necessary to know that while egalitarianism exists in the work culture, there is also a hierarchy within organizational roles. Not everyone can do everything without approval. Things have to be approved by higher authorities and/or other groups (committees) within organizations, and this culture is very prevalent in libraries.

So, as to which leadership style works is something the leader needs to work at and learn. Transformational leadership style has been hailed as the right kind of leadership style in the West in recent years (Jogulu and Wood, 2008). This is because, as mentioned previously, change is constant in today's work environment, and transformational leaders are considered best suited to leading an organization through changes caused either by internal or external factors. Li (2001) quotes Robert House, Chair of Organizational Studies at the Wharton School of Management, University of Pennsylvania, as saying:

Organizational leaders in the twenty-first century will face a number of important changes that will impose substantial new role demands. These changes include greater demographic diversity of workforces, a faster pace of environmental and technological change, more frequent geopolitical shifts affecting borders and distribution of power among nation states, and increased international competition.

(Li, 2001: 175)

All of these have an impact on libraries and a transformational leader can enable smooth transformation in times of change. Transformational leaders can bring about this transformation, and Michael Fullan calls this “reculturing” (2001: 44). He goes on to say that leading in reculturing organizations does not mean adopting a chain of innovative ideas implemented one after the other, but “producing the capacity to seek, critically assess, and selectively incorporate new ideas and practises – all the time inside the organization as well as outside of it” (ibid.).

Weiner, too, confirms transformational style as a preferred style for libraries, and goes on to quote Suwannarat's study which reveals that female directors (in libraries) exhibit higher levels of transformational leadership behaviors and therefore are more effective than male directors (Weiner, 2003: 14). But one style alone is never enough for one to be a successful leader. A good leader should be able to combine two or more leadership styles as the situation demands.

Kimberley (2010) discusses six styles of leadership and cites two of those as having a negative impact. Coercive and pace-setting styles of leadership are two styles that decrease employee engagement and therefore have a negative impact. The “Do what I tell you” and “Do as I do now” styles are top-down management styles and don't take into consideration the different work styles of employees. On the other hand, four other leadership styles – authoritative, affiliative, democratic, and coaching – offer employees a chance to understand the organizational goals and therefore engage with them. Kimberley goes on to discuss the importance of the need for multiple leadership styles in today's organizations and the ability of a leader to move seamlessly and naturally from style to style.

Literature review

In searching the literature first on leadership in general, the authors determined that the metamorphosis at ZSR was brought about by a style of leadership known as transformational leadership. The term “transformational leadership” appeared in literature in the field of education as early as the 1920s and is currently defined as “A leadership style that involves generating a vision for the organization and inspiring followers to meet the challenges that it sets. Transformational leadership depends on the leader’s ability to appeal to the higher values and motives of followers and to inspire a feeling of loyalty and trust.”2 A search of the literature for peer-reviewed articles specifically on transformational leadership, and limited to those written during ZSR’s period of transformation, revealed elements matching Sutton’s style at ZSR. Townley wrote with a focus “on the use of transformational leadership in technological university libraries.”3 He stated that transformational leadership is the least used of three methods of addressing change, but “is the one change method which library leaders and workers can apply directly in any situation.”4 In describing transformational leadership, Townley provided a case study for each of five practices, identified earlier by Kouzes and Posner: (1) modeling the way; (2) inspiring a shared vision; (3) challenging the process; (4) enabling others to act; and (5) encouraging the heart.5 Smith conducted a survey of library school students and asserted that the Kouzes and Posner practices can be taught.6 Mavrinac, drawing from works by Kotter as well as by Kezar and Eckel, viewed transformational leadership through the lens of peer mentoring, and in her literature review significantly notes that “There is a strong relationship between the success of the change initiative and its alignment with the existing organizational culture.”7

Hernan and Rossiter apply the newer lens of Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence (EI) in researching the successful traits of library leaders, and, in comparing EI with transformational leadership, find similarities. They explain that transformational leaders:

“have special skills that allow them to provide a supportive environment while motivating followers to higher levels of personal action. A transformational leader inspires the members of the organization to achieve more than they thought possible.”

“maximize the needs of followers,” meaning that “By appealing to higher-order needs, the transformational leader generates subordinate commitment to achieving the organizational mission.”

“empower their followers due to their ability to translate intention into reality and sustain it for the followers. This empowerment puts duality into motion; empowerment creates more empowerment, which in turn creates more power and allows followers to achieve their potential.”

“are passionate about their roles, tasks, responsibilities, and obligations to their staff. They forget their personal problems, lose a sense of time, and feel competent and in control. Without passion, there is no direction and vision is short-lived.”

“In reviewing the literature on transformational leadership, the following traits appear consistently: acting creatively, acting interactively (with vision), being empowered, passionate, and ethical.”8

Vision and empowerment are elements common to the style of leadership described by Kouzes and Posner and the one described by Hernan and Rossiter. Parallels could be drawn between “challenging the process”9 and “acting creatively.” Similarly, “encouraging the heart”10 could be construed to have the same effect upon followers as being passionate.11 Lastly, “modeling the way”12 “ and being “ethical”13“ both embodied the idea of leading by example, or “walking the talk.”

Describing transformational leadership

Many studies have been undertaken to discover what ‘transformational leadership’ looks like, to analyse what sets transformational leaders apart from other leaders, and indeed to discover what abilities, skills and qualities are required by those working, or called on, to transform organisational behaviour.

Handscombe and Norman (1989) identify the importance of a management ‘focus on corporate issues and not functional change’ as one of the key capabilities in the formulation and implementation of a strategy for successful organisational change and development: ‘top management teams must address the fundamental strategic issues for the business, however difficult the resolution may appear. This must be done on a team basis and not by accepting functionality developed proposals. Opportunity identification and evaluation must be ongoing and not inhibited by bureaucratic procedures’ (p. 125). The importance of the organisation’s future shape and success, then, clearly overrides any current obstacles. While degrees of incremental change may form part of the overall change management strategy, there is no room here for minor tweaking on a procedural level, nor yet for a sentimental attachment to what has gone before. Existing cultural norms, then, must not be allowed to interfere with the achievement of an agreed future state, and the manner of accomplishing this is clearly differentiated from other types of change management.

As discussed above, however, the difficulties faced by organisations intent on achieving strategic change are found not so much in the creation of change strategies but in their implementation. Creating a vision is one thing – making it happen is quite another. Referring to Kurt Lewin’s seminal work on intergroup dynamics and planned change, Dawson (2003: 30) points out that:

Managing change through reducing the forces that prevent change, rather than through increasing the forces that are pushing for change are central to Lewin’s approach and his technique of force-field analysis … [and that he] maintained that there are driving and restraining forces that maintain the status quo and within which organizations generally exist in a state of quasi-stationary equilibrium. Thus, in order to create conditions conducive to change it is necessary to identify the restraining and driving forces, and to change one or other of these in order to create an imbalance … Once an imbalance has been created the system can be altered and a new set of driving and restraining forces put into place.

They must first disrupt and change the existing culture (‘the deep structure of organizations, which is rooted in the values, beliefs and assumptions held by organizational members’ (Denison, 1996: 654) in order to create an environment in which their vision can be enacted: as Sarros et al. (2011) observe, ‘In many instances, the type of leadership required to change culture is transformational, because culture change needs enormous energy and commitment to achieve outcomes’ (p. 294).

Handscombe and Norman’s emphasis on having the management team address the fundamental strategic issues for the business on a team basis is important here. Although the management team might, for strategic planning purposes, distance themselves from the day-to-day, functional operation of the organisation, they are in fact an integral part, if not the guiding embodiment, of its cultural structure, and so must change their own cultural perception before they can cascade their new strategic vision effectively to others. How effectively and consistently they model the new behaviour, and the methods they employ to motivate and influence the behaviour of their colleagues will, of course, dictate the pace and ultimate success of the transformational exercise.

McGuire and Hutchings (2007: 155–6) consider that

The concept of transformational leadership has altered our notions and understanding of leadership and its effects on individuals and organisations [and modifies] our perceptions of modern leaders from authoritarian decision-makers to instrumental facilitators … The appeal of transformational leadership lies in the ability of the leader to inspire followers to transcend their own interests and work towards the benefit of all.

In addition, Bass (1995) offers a very useful definition of transformational leadership as being composed of four dimensions:

Charisma: the leader provides vision and a sense of mission; instils pride, faith and respect; excites, arouses and inspires junior colleagues.

Individual consideration: the leader provides coaching and teaching; delegates projects to stimulate learning experiences; provides for continuous feedback; and treats each follower as an individual.

Intellectual stimulation: the leader provides employees with a flow of challenging new ideas; motivates followers to think in new ways; emphasises problem solving and the use of reasoning before taking action.

Inspiration: the leader acts as a model for staff; behaves in ways that motivate and inspire followers by providing meaning and challenge; communicates a vision.

One might add ‘trust’ to this list, since, arguably, a leader who fails to inspire trust in followers is highly unlikely to have much of a chance to display the other traits and skills illustrated above. Followers, especially those faced with change, need to be able to place trust in their leader even though they might not, initially at least, fully understand or support the need for the proposed changes to take place. This 'trust' might manifest itself in a number of ways: it might take the form of an implicit trust in one who has already guided them successfully through choppy waters on previous occasions, and has clearly demonstrated their own faith in the new direction; or it might be more tentatively offered to one who inspires trust in others by displaying both supreme confidence in their own vision and abilities and in the ability of their followers to accomplish the vision, and (importantly) has described their vision with sufficient detail and clarity to demonstrate clear-headedness in their strategic thinking.

Of course, those who need to rely on the latter approach, perhaps especially in the case of newcomers to an organisation, face the unenviable challenge of needing to remain at least one step ahead of their followers at all junctures. They need to continuously prove that their followers’ faith in them and their judgement is not misplaced: phrases such as ‘Trust me, I know what I’m doing …’ will only last for so long without positive proof that their decisions are the right ones, and that their chosen direction will deliver the vision they have been selling. However earned, trust can evaporate very quickly if followers perceive more than the occasional faltering step, and while tenacity might carry leaders past previously unseen obstacles, their followers need to believe that as many of those obstacles as possible have been foreseen, accounted for and addressed in the grand plan.

Further, if it is important that the leader inspires trust, it is equally as important that s/he gives trust to those who follow her/him. Change, of any nature, is not accomplished by one person alone, but in concert with many individuals, all working together to bring it about. An organisation is made up of individuals who, at all ranks, have a vested interest either in making change happen or in causing it to fail – or at least in watching cynically from the sidelines while a change initiative sinks without trace. People who feel trusted to take forward an element of the change agenda will, if sufficiently stimulated and inspired, work hard to achieve the goal they have been set – those who don’t feel so entrusted will be much more inclined to take no further part in the process or, at worst, will work against it, either overtly or covertly. Rumour and doubt spread furthest and fastest among the marginalised, and cynicism can quickly become subversion among the disenfranchised.

Tenacity, as mentioned above, can be a very useful trait in transformational leaders, as can a sense of humour. Almost inevitably, support from followers is unlikely to be unanimous and instantaneous in the early stages. It is also reasonable to assume that those who drive change are already committed to it, and have probably already, in their minds, arrived at the end goal. They are, consequently, eager to see the change put into practice, and it is easy for them to become frustrated at the delay while everyone else catches up – tenacity needs to be tempered by patience and an understanding that people move through change at different speeds, so that at any given time some will be further along the change cycle than others. Transformational leadership is a long game, and an awkward and often difficult one, especially given the necessary but for many quite uncomfortable and disconcerting changes in culture that underpin it. Part of the skill in achieving successful change lies in, I believe, keeping the end goal in mind while observing where colleagues are in the change cycle, and maintaining a sufficient, though probably uneven, forward momentum so that those who are further along than others do not lose their forward impetus while others are encouraged to catch up. A colleague once told me that towards the end of team meetings he would often put forward seemingly fanciful and spontaneous ‘What if …?’ ideas, announcing them as too far off the wall for serious debate but offered for discussion anyway. The discussions that followed were usually (though not always) light-hearted, and normally ended with his being gently ridiculed for wasting everyone’s time. It is interesting to consider how many of those ‘What if …?’ scenarios later found their way onto the agenda for strategic change, but irrespective of that the discussions had served their purpose, in the medium term, by ensuring that while some at the table had their interests peaked and their imaginations fed, others were either manoeuvred a little further along the parabola of change or cajoled into accepting the inevitability of change. It was important also that these discussions and debates were undertaken within a team setting. As Arnold et al. (2001: 318) comment, ‘Transformational leadership increases trust, commitment and team efficacy … Strong values and norms within a team are still important in that they have an effect on the commitment that is felt within the team.’ To have broken apart the shared commitment and mutual support engendered by membership of the team would have been counterproductive to my colleague’s objectives at that time, as that would have left those individuals who had yet to fulfil their journey through the change parabola feeling stranded, isolated, unsupported and unable to provide the necessary impetus and direction to their own followers. Transformational leadership is a long game, and one best played with patience, tenacity and skill.

Two final questions remain in this section: who are the transformational leaders, and where do they come from? Kelloway and Barling (2000) point out that ‘While there is little doubt that leaders’ use of a transformational leadership style results in positive outcomes, there remains the question of how organizations use this knowledge … [and that] recognizing that most organizations do not have the luxury of replacing all of their leaders with “transformational” leaders’ (p. 356), the central questions for organisations are whether it is possible to train transformational leaders, how this might be done and whether it makes a difference to organisational outcomes. Taking as their measures Bass’s transformational leadership qualities, as mentioned above (charisma, individual consideration, intellectual stimulation and inspiration), their studies show that, through the delivery of ‘statistically significant changes in transformational leadership resulting from the training’, the answer to the question ‘Can you train transformational leaders? … is an unequivocal yes!’ and that the ‘subordinates of trained leaders became more committed (i.e. loyal) to the organization than were the subordinates of untrained leaders … [also that] Perhaps more importantly, branch-level [performance] increased only in those branches where the manager was trained’ (ibid.: 356–7).

Through appropriate training, coaching and reflection, then, leaders are able to develop transformational leadership behaviours, and to display them consistently in their daily transactions. In this, perhaps ‘consistency’ is the most important key word – consistency of message, and consistency of delivery. While it is important, for example, that a leader should provide an accessible and appealing vision in order to inspire followers, that vision has to be consistently maintained throughout the exercise; a vision which is constantly remodelled is not only difficult to sell but difficult for followers to buy into. Those who have been inspired to follow their leader’s ‘new future’ vision will soon lose faith, both in the vision and in the leader, if their goalposts are frequently moved. Similarly, a leader who one day encourages follower interaction with new ideas, asking for input, feedback and reasoned argument in problem-solving situations, but who then closes down debate on important matters and delivers unilateral decisions on another day, will very quickly disincentivise followers from making a personal investment in the outcome, and from taking any responsibility for its success or failure.

It has been argued many times, quite justifiably, that leaders can emerge at all levels of an organisation, at different times, for different reasons and in different styles. However, as McGuire and Hutchings (2007: 155–6) illustrate:

The concept of transformational leadership has altered our notions and understanding of leadership and its effects on individuals and organisations … Indeed, research into transformational leadership shows that this leadership style converts followers into leaders and results in the motivational and moral elevation of both followers and leaders … [and that] The appeal of transformational leadership lies in the ability of the leader to inspire followers to transcend their own interests and work towards the benefit of all.

All this, of course, framed within the context of a recognised need for profound change. Perhaps what differentiates transformational leaders from others, then, are three things: the nature, depth and context of the change they need to deliver; the skills they employ; and the consistency of character and behaviour they display in order to deliver the change required of them.

In their 2007 study of Dr Martin Luther King, McGuire and Hutchings offer the following succinct observations on the nature of transformational leaders, drawn from his example:

Transformational leaders need to demonstrate a capacity to recognise the need for change and devise innovative strategies to enable that change to occur. Through questioning norms and assumptions and encouraging divergent thinking, transformational leaders stimulate increased autonomy and independence amongst followers … By becoming champions for change, transformational leaders can show followers the way forward and make them believe that change is both possible and worthwhile … One conclusion is, however, inescapable, namely that transformational leaders retain enormous power to realise substantial ground-breaking change for the benefit of individuals, organisations and society.

(Ibid.: 162–3)

Few could aspire to the transformational impact that Dr King achieved, nor yet the profound moral and societal change he inspired, but whether attempting to change the culture of a society or of an academic library, transformational leaders are children of their time – they emerge in answer to a particular set of circumstances, when profound change is most needed, and they employ their skills and traits of character to excite, challenge, coach and inspire their followers in such a way as to realise a future state that might otherwise have been impossible to achieve.

1.2 Models of Leadership

In a comprehensive review of the research literature on school leadership, Leithwood and Duke (1999) delineate six models of leadership as predominating in the articles published since 1988 in four leading English-language educational administration journals. Of the three most frequently mentioned models, ‘instructional leadership’ led with 13 mentions, followed by ‘transformational leadership’ (11 mentions), and ‘contingent/leadership styles’ (nine mentions). The other three leadership models uncovered were ‘moral leadership,’ ‘managerial leadership,’ and ‘participative leadership.’ Instructional leadership is close in meaning to the broader concept of ‘educational leadership’ explicated here. Transformational leadership involves leadership that inspires and heightens the commitments and capacities of organization members toward the attainment of organizational goals. In contrast, ‘transactional leadership’ involves the exchange of valued things between leaders and followers in a more extrinsic relationship that lacks the quality of a mutual pursuit of higher purposes.

Leithwood and Duke (1999, p. 54) state that the contingent/leadership styles approach focuses on ‘how leaders respond to the unique organizational circumstances or problems they face as a consequence, for example, of the nature and preferences of coworkers, conditions of work, and tasks to be undertaken.’ Moral leadership (see Hodgkinson 1991) focuses on ‘the values and ethics of the leader, so authority and influence are to be derived from defensible conceptions of what is right or good’ (Leithwood and Duke 1999, p. 50). Managerial leadership ‘focuses on the functions, tasks, or behaviors of the leaders’ (p. 53) in the belief that competent performance of these functions will facilitate work within the organization. Participative leadership emphasizes the group's decision-making processes and collective involvement. As argued earlier in this article, it represents the kind of leadership increasingly in demand in democratic societies.

2.3 Leadership as a Charismatic Process

Like the attributional school of thought, the contingency approach has also set the stage for a more relational slant on the study of leadership. Believing a leader cannot be studied meaningfully in isolation from his or her surroundings, this approach views leadership as an interactive process between the leader, the followers, and the situation. This orientation, transcending earlier, more naive approaches to leadership behavior, is an important step forward.

The problem with many relational theories in the past is that their point of convergence was too narrow. Initiation vs. consideration, social orientation vs. task orientation, autocracy vs. democracy—such dimensions are overly simplistic in describing leadership in its context. Furthermore, these earlier relational studies focused far too much on exclusive superior–subordinate relationships, ignoring (or slighting) the various constituencies of the leader: the industry environment, the national culture, and the culture that characterizes the organization.

This shortcoming has opened the door for a fresh look at charismatic leadership. Another impetus for this line of research has been the prevalence of a business climate of uncertainty and unpredictability—a breeding ground for the emergence of charismatic leadership. In our competitive, global world, where the transformation and revitalization of organizations holds a central position, the leader is increasingly seen as a crucial agent of change.

The new focus, then, is on the inspirational role of leaders. Researchers are turning to the study of leaders who by force of their personality have an extraordinary effect on their followers. The challenge for leaders of organizations becomes how to affect the mind-set of the organizational participants through value creation, through influencing the organization's culture, and through building commitment to the organization's mission, objectives, and strategies to obtain well-above-average organizational performance.

The first person to take up this new challenge was political scientist MacGregor Burns (Burns 1978). In his writing, he extends Max Weber's reflections on charisma (Weber 1947), making a distinction between transactional and transformational leadership. While transactional leadership can best be viewed as a mundane contractual exchange based on self-interest (often described in the literature as the manager's role), transformational leadership seeks to satisfy the higher needs of followers—to engage in a process of mutual stimulation and elevation whereby followers will transcend their own self-interests for the good of the group (Bennis and Nanus 1985, Conger and Kanungo 1998).

A number of researchers have built on Burns' notion of transformational leadership, using observed behavior of leaders to break the concept down into various components, in an effort to broaden early charismatic conceptualizations. For example, Bass and Avolio (1993), who view charisma as a subset of transformational leadership, list four behavioral components in the context of transformational leadership: (a) charisma or idealized influence, (b) inspiration, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration. According to them, charisma alone is insufficient to put in place a successful transformation process. Shamir et al. (1993), building on earlier work done by House (House 1977), contend that charismatic leadership affects followers' self-concepts and has motivational consequences due to (a) changing follower perceptions of the task that has to be accomplished, (b) offering an attractive vision of the future, (c) creating a group identity, and (d) heightening individual and collective feelings of self-efficacy.

These various offshoots of a focus on the inspirational role of leadership contribute to a rich description of what the leadership mystique is all about. Researchers who view leadership as a charismatic or transformational process give proper attention to the contextual and cultural dimensions that are part and parcel of leadership dynamics. They are sensitive to the impact of the environment on leaders and on their behavior. Furthermore, they reject narrow instrumentalism in favor of a perspective whereby the leader is seen as the transformational agent of change. Some scholars have made the point, however, that the transactional role of leadership should not be ignored. They suggest that the most effective leaders take on two roles: a charismatic role (consisting of envisioning, empowering, and energizing) and an architectural role (designing the organization, setting up structures, and formulating control and reward systems (Kets de Vries and Florent-Treacy 1999)).

Some scholars of leadership argue, however, that in spite of the new, richer color given to leadership research, additional steps need to be taken to deepen our understanding of the leader's relational interchanges. And the challenge is formidable. In spite of the various rational ways in which researchers attempt to deconstruct leadership and charisma, charismatic leadership is not rational in the traditional sense of the word. By its very nature, it is unstable, in that it exploits what can be interpreted as irrational processes. We need now to find ways to explore the forces that transcend rationality. Critics also argue that the study design of many researchers evaluating inspirational leaderships treats all leaders and all followers as amorphous, interchangeable groups of people; in other words, they fail to attend to differences in personality style. To rectify these shortcomings in leadership research, deeper insight into people's desires, wishes, and needs is needed; and that insight can be provided by a clinical focus.

Which of the following has been associated with transformational leadership quizlet?

What are the 4 types of transformational leadership?

What does transformational leadership include?

What are the 5 characteristics of transformational leadership?