COMPARISON OF TRANSFORMATINAL AND TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP

 

Fiedler (1965), has stated that the leadership as a critical factor which affects to the success or the failure of any organisation whereas Stogdill (1989), has stated that leadership as a process where the leader can influence on others to get their support to achieve a common task. Since expected outcomes of an organisation can be achieved through the people who work in the said organisation it is important to direct those employees effectively where leaders should have the capacity to lead and motivate the employees to achieve the expected results in an optimum level.

Further Mullins (1996) has stated that the role of the leadership style as the way which leaders are carried out the functions or the way of the behaviour of the manager towards the other members of the group. Further Yuki (1997) has stated that leadership as a process other than a position where leadership process lay in the middle of the leader, follower, and situation where leadership is the process of interaction of the said three.

                                    Figure 1: LFS model of leadership

(Source: Yuki, G.A. (1992), Leadership in organisation, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.; Prentice Hall)

 Leadership Style

Mathieu (1990) has stated that leadership style is the way that the functions of leadership are carried out. Bass et al (2003), have stated that transformational and transactional leadership are the main leadership styles commonly identified in leadership styles.

Transactional theory of leadership

As implies by the name transactional leadership is engaged in a transaction between the leader or the supervisor and the subordinate where the transaction is a discipline or a reward depending on the performances or the behaviour of the subordinate.

According to Bass (1985), the self-interest of the subordinate is the focus of the transactional leader and as per singer and singer (2001), a transactional leader tries to motivate the subordinates by offering rewards for his achievements by defining the goal to be achieve and the rewards which the employee will get by achieving set goals. Further Bass et al (2003), have stated that transactional leaders are having an expectation of achieving the set goals by the subordinates and they will not consider in change the attitudes, values, growth, and development of the subordinates in long term. Thus they will not encourage the subordinates to take high responsibilities, develop their-selves to be leaders rather just to perform to achieve the set goals and collect the rewards.

Transformational theory of leadership

According to Bass (1985), transformational style of leadership generates from personal values which leads to enhance the moral and values of the subordinate which cannot be applied and negotiated. Further Schwarzwald, Koslowsky and Agassi (2001), stated that transformational leadership considered as visionary, fluent, secure, and able to produce confidence in others which leads to motive subordinates to enhance the level of their usual performance levels and goals where transformational leadership style go beyond the transactional leadership style.

 

Further Densten (1999), has identify four types of transformational leadership styles namely:

1)      Idealized influence.

2)      Inspirational motivation.

3)      Individualized consideration.

4)      Intellectual stimulation. 

Johnson (2006), illustrate above as:

Idealized influence: A role-modelling behaviour can be seen in this style where the leader will implant respect, pride, and faith on subordinate and transmit what is really important and a sense of mission.

Inspirational motivation: This is where the leader use symbols and images to raise the believing and expectations of the subordinates to achieve the mission and the vison of the organisation.

Individualized consideration: The leader will treat each subordinate as an individual and provide teaching and coaching with delegation of work and project which lead to have an experiential learning.

Intellectual stimulation: The leader will allow subordinates to have a cognitive development where the subordinates will ask to think new strategies and ways of solving problems prior to take actions.

Table 1: Comparison between Transactional and Transformational Leadership

Transactional Leadership	Transformational Leadership
•    Leadership of the status quo. Effective in stable organizations and contexts. More likely to be observed in a well-ordered society.	•    Leadership of change (within leaders, followers and organizations). Important in times of distress and rapid and destabilizing change.
•    Focuses on social and economic exchanges between leaders and followers, using contingent rewards and administrative actions to reinforce positive and reform negative behaviours.	•    Focuses on organizational objectives and organizational change by disseminating new values and seeking alternatives to existing arrangements.
•    Leader-follower relationship sees each exchange needs and services to satisfy their independent objectives.	•    Leader-follower relationship sees purposes of both become fused, leading to unity and shared purpose.
•    Motivates followers by appealing to their own self-interest (for example, pay, promotion).	•    Attempts to raise follower needs (following Maslow’s hierarchy) to higher levels (for example, self-esteem) and to develop followers into leaders.
•    Based on directive power acts.	•    Based on interaction and influence.
•    Follower response based on compliance. Supervision likely to be important.	•    Follower response based on commitment. Supervision may be minimal.
•    Leadership ‘act’ takes place but leaders and followers not bound together in mutual pursuit of higher purpose.	•    Leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality.
•    Founded on people’s need to make a living by completing tasks.	•    Founded on people’s need for meaning.
•    Focuses on situational authority, politics and perks. Involves values, but typically those required for successful exchange relationships (for example, reciprocity, integrity).	•    Focuses on personal power, values, morals and ethics. May be demonstrated by anyone in an organization in any type of position.
•    Emphasis on day-to-day affairs, business needs, short-term goals and quantitative information.	•    Transcends daily affairs, concentrating on long-term issues.
•    Leader-follower relationship may be established quickly. A relatively impersonal relationship maintained only as long as benefits outweigh costs.	•    May take time for leader-follower bonds to develop. A personal relationship that may persist when costs outweigh benefits.
•    Tends to be transitory. Once a transaction is completed, relationship may need to be redefined.	•    Tends to be enduring.
•    Emphasizes tactical issues.	•    Emphasizes missions and strategies for achieving them.
•    Typically involves working within current systems.	•    May involve redesigning of jobs to make them more meaningful and challenging. Emphasizes realization of human potential.
•    Supports structures and systems that emphasize outcomes.	•    Aligns structures and systems to overarching values and goals.
•    Follower counselling focuses on evaluation.	•    Follower counselling focuses on personal development.
•    Atomistic worldview and moral altruistic motives based on teleological perspective (that is to say, based on consequences).	•    Organic worldview and moral altruistic motives based on deontological perspective (that is to say, based on promises).

(Source: Developed based on the literature)

References

Bass, B. M. (1985), Leadership and performance beyond expectation, New York; Free Press.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003), “Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, pp. 207-218.

Densten, I. L. (1999), “Senior Australian law enforcement leadership under examination”, Policing and International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 22(1), pp. 45-57.

Fiedler F.E., 1965, A theory of Leadership effectiveness, New York : McGrew Hill.

Mathieu, J.E. (1990), “A test of Subordinates’ Achievement and Affiliation Needs as Moderators of a Leader Path Goal Relationship”, Journal of   Applied Social Psychology, 33, pp. 33-46.

Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M., & Agassi, V. (2001), “Captain's leadership type and police officers, compliance to power bases”, European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 10(3), pp. 273.

Singer, M., & Singer, A. (2001), “Situational constraints on transformational versus transactional leadership behaviour, subordinates' leadership preference, and satisfaction”, The Journal of Social Psychology, 27(1), pp. 63-74. 

Stogdill, R.M. (1974), Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature, New York: Free Press.

Yuki, G.A. (1997), Leadership in organisation, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.; Prentice Hall.