psych leader

8 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

DESCRIPTION

As one of the current and most popular approaches to leadership, the transformational leadership approach has been the focus of much research since the 1980s. As its name implies, transformational leadership is a process that changes and transforms people. It is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals. It includes assessing followers’ motives, satisfying their needs, and treating them as full human beings. Transformational leadership involves an exceptional form of influence that moves followers to accomplish more than what is usually expected of them. It is a process that often incorporates charismatic and visionary leadership.

Transformational leadership is part of the “New Leadership” paradigm (Bryman, 1992), which gives more attention to the charismatic and affective elements of leadership. In a content analysis of articles published in  The Leadership Quarterly, Lowe and Gardner (2001) found that one third of the research was about transformational or charismatic leadership. That interest has continued into the new millennium; in a follow-up review of leadership research, Dinh et al. (2014) found that interest in transformational leadership was sustained from 2000 to 2012. Similarly, Antonakis (2012) found that the number of papers and citations in the field has grown at an increasing rate, not only in traditional areas like management and social psychology, but in other disciplines such as nursing, education, and industrial engineering. Bass and Riggio (2006) suggested that transformational leadership’s popularity might be due to its emphasis on intrinsic motivation and follower development, which fits the needs of today’s work groups, who want to be inspired and empowered to succeed in times of uncertainty. Clearly, many scholars are studying transformational leadership, and it occupies a central place in leadership research. However, others (i.e., Andersen, 2015; Anderson, Baur, Griffith, & Buckley, 2017) have suggested that the interest in transformational leadership may be exaggerated and that this approach to leading may be less significant as millennials continue to flood into the workplace.

An encompassing approach, transformational leadership can be used to describe a wide range of leadership, from very specific attempts to influence followers on a one-to-one level, to very broad attempts to influence whole organizations and even entire cultures. Although the transformational leader plays a pivotal role in precipitating change, followers and leaders are inextricably bound together in the transformation process. In fact, transformational leadership focuses so heavily on the relationship between leader and follower that some (Andersen, 2015) have suggested that this bias may limit explanations for transformational leadership on organizational effectiveness.

Transformational Leadership Defined

The emergence of  transformational leadership as an important approach to leadership began with a classic work by political sociologist James MacGregor Burns titled  Leadership (1978). In his work, Burns attempted to link the roles of leadership and followership. He wrote of leaders as people who tap the motives of followers in order to better reach the goals of leaders and followers (p. 18). For Burns, leadership is quite different from power because it is inseparable from followers’ needs.

Transformational  Versus Transactional Leadership.

Burns distinguished between two types of leadership:  transactional and  transformational. Transactional leadership refers to the bulk of leadership models, which focus on the exchanges that occur between leaders and their followers. Politicians who win votes by promising “no new taxes” are demonstrating transactional leadership. Similarly, managers who offer promotions to employees who surpass their goals are exhibiting transactional leadership. In the classroom, teachers are being transactional when they give students a grade for work completed. The exchange dimension of transactional leadership is very common and can be observed at many levels throughout all types of organizations. While exchanges or transactions between leader and member are a natural component of employment contracts, research suggests that employees do not necessarily perceive transactional leaders as those most capable of creating trusting, mutually beneficial leader–member relationships (Notgrass, 2014). Instead, employees prefer managers to perform transformational leadership behaviors such as encouraging creativity, recognizing accomplishments, building trust, and inspiring a collective vision (Notgrass, 2014).

In contrast to transactional leadership, transformational leadership is the process whereby a person engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower. This type of leader is attentive to the needs and motives of followers and tries to help followers reach their fullest potential. Burns points to Mohandas Gandhi as a classic example of transformational leadership. Gandhi raised the hopes and demands of millions of his people and, in the process, was changed himself.

Another good example of transformational leadership can be observed in the efforts of Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, who raised awareness around the world regarding global climate change. Thunberg began her activism by sitting outside the Swedish parliament every school day, holding a sign reading  Skolstrejk för klimatet (“School strike for climate”). This inspired an international movement, and Thunberg spoke in public and to political leaders and assemblies, where she criticized world leaders for their failure to sufficiently address the climate crisis.

In the organizational world, an example of transformational leadership would be a manager who attempts to change a company’s corporate values to reflect a more humane standard of fairness and justice. In the process, both the manager and the followers may emerge with a stronger and higher set of moral values. In fact, Mason, Griffin, and Parker (2014) demonstrated that through transformational leadership training, leaders were able to enhance their self-efficacy, positive affect, and ability to consider multiple perspectives. Their findings suggest that transformational leadership can result in positive psychological gains for both leader and follower.

Pseudotransformational Leadership.

Because the conceptualization of transformational leadership set forth by Burns (1978) includes raising the level of morality in others, it is difficult to use this term when describing a leader such as Adolf Hitler, who was transforming but in a negative way. To deal with this problem, Bass (1998) coined the term  pseudotransformational leadership. This term refers to leaders who are self-consumed, exploitive, and power oriented, with warped moral values (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Pseudotransformational leadership is considered  personalized leadership, which focuses on the leader’s own interests rather than on the interests of others (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Authentic transformational leadership is  socialized leadership, which is concerned with the collective good. Socialized transformational leaders transcend their own interests for the sake of others (Howell & Avolio, 1993).

In a series of four experimental studies, Christie, Barling, and Turner (2011) set forth a preliminary model of pseudotransformational leadership that reflected four components of transformational leadership discussed later in this chapter:  idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and  individualized consideration. This model helps to clarify the meaning of pseudotransformational leadership. It suggests that pseudotransformational leadership is inspired leadership that is self-serving, is unwilling to encourage independent thought in followers, and exhibits little general caring for others. Pseudotransformational leaders have strong inspirational talent and appeal but are manipulative and dominant and direct followers toward the leader’s values. This type of leadership is threatening to the welfare of followers because it ignores the common good.

To sort out the complexities related to the “moral uplifting” component of authentic transformational leadership, Zhu, Avolio, Riggio, and Sosik (2011) proposed a theoretical model examining how authentic transformational leadership influences the ethics of individual followers and groups. The authors hypothesize that authentic transformational leadership positively affects followers’ moral identities and moral emotions (e.g., empathy and guilt) and this, in turn, leads to moral decision making and moral action by the followers. Furthermore, the authors theorize that authentic transformational leadership is positively associated with group ethical climate, decision making, and moral action. In the future, research is needed to test the validity of the assumptions laid out in this model.

Transformational Leadership and Charisma

At about the same time Burns’s book was published, House (1976) published a theory of charismatic leadership. Since its publication, charismatic leadership has received a great deal of attention by researchers (e.g., Conger, 1999; Hunt & Conger, 1999). It is often described in ways that make it similar to, if not synonymous with, transformational leadership.

The word  charisma was first used to describe a special gift that certain individuals possess that gives them the capacity to do extraordinary things. Weber (1947) provided the most well-known definition of charisma as a special personality characteristic that gives a person superhuman or exceptional powers and is reserved for a few, is of divine origin, and results in the person being treated as a leader. Despite Weber’s emphasis on charisma as a personality characteristic, he also recognized the important role played by followers in validating charisma in these leaders (Bryman, 1992; House, 1976).

In his theory of charismatic leadership, House suggested that charismatic leaders act in unique ways that have specific charismatic effects on their followers ( Table 8.1). For House, the personality characteristics of a charismatic leader include being dominant, having a strong desire to influence others, being self-confident, and having a strong sense of one’s own moral values.

In addition to displaying certain personality characteristics, charismatic leaders demonstrate specific types of behaviors. First, they are strong role models for the beliefs and values they want their followers to adopt. For example, Gandhi advocated nonviolence and was an exemplary role model of civil disobedience. Second, charismatic leaders appear competent to followers. Third, they articulate ideological goals that have moral overtones. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech is an example of this type of charismatic behavior.

Fourth, charismatic leaders communicate high expectations for followers, and they exhibit confidence in followers’ abilities to meet these expectations. The impact of this behavior is to increase followers’ sense of competence and self-efficacy (Avolio & Gibbons, 1988), which in turn improves their performance.

Table 8.1 Personality Characteristics, Behaviors, and Effects on Followers of Charismatic Leadership

Personality Characteristics	Behaviors	Effects on Followers
Dominant	Sets strong role model	Trust in leader’s ideology
Desire to influence	Shows competence	Belief similarity between leader and follower
Self-confident	Articulates goals	Unquestioning acceptance
Strong moral values	Communicates high expectations	Affection toward leader
	Expresses confidence	Obedience
	Arouses motives	Identification with leader
		Emotional involvement
		Heightened goals
		Increased confidence

Fifth, charismatic leaders arouse task-relevant motives in followers that may include affiliation, power, or esteem. For example, former U.S. president John F. Kennedy appealed to the human values of the American people when he stated, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Within the organizational context, charismatic CEOs may motivate members of their organization by modeling and fostering a transformational leadership climate (Boehm, Dwertmann, Bruch, & Shamir, 2015), which may result in increases in employee identification with their organization and in overall organizational performance.

According to House’s charismatic theory, several effects are the direct result of charismatic leadership. They include follower trust in the leader’s ideology, similarity between the followers’ beliefs and the leader’s beliefs, unquestioning acceptance of the leader, expression of affection toward the leader, follower obedience, identification with the leader, emotional involvement in the leader’s goals, heightened goals for followers, and increased follower confidence in goal achievement. Consistent with Weber, House contends that these charismatic effects are more likely to occur in contexts in which followers feel distress because in stressful situations followers look to leaders to deliver them from their difficulties.

House’s charismatic theory has been extended and revised through the years (see Conger, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1998). One major revision to the theory was made by Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993). They postulated that charismatic leadership transforms followers’ self-concepts and tries to link the identity of followers to the collective identity of the organization. Charismatic leaders forge this link by emphasizing the intrinsic rewards of work and de-emphasizing the extrinsic rewards. The hope is that followers will view work as an expression of themselves. Throughout the process, leaders express high expectations for followers and help them gain a sense of confidence and self-efficacy.

In summary, charismatic leadership works because it ties followers and their self-concepts to the organizational identity.

A Model of Transformational Leadership

In the mid-1980s, Bass (1985) provided a more expanded and refined version of transformational leadership that was based on, but not fully consistent with, the prior works of Burns (1978) and House (1976). In his approach, Bass extended Burns’s work by giving more attention to followers’ rather than leaders’ needs, by suggesting that transformational leadership could apply to situations in which the outcomes were not positive, and by describing transactional and transformational leadership as a single continuum ( Figure 8.1) rather than mutually independent continua (Yammarino, 1993). Bass gave more attention to the emotional elements and origins of charisma, suggesting that charisma is a necessary but not sufficient condition for transformational leadership (Yammarino, 1993).

Figure 8.1 Leadership Continuum From Transformational to Laissez-Faire Leadership

Bass (1985, p. 20) argued that transformational leadership motivates followers to do more than expected by (a) raising followers’ levels of consciousness about the importance and value of specified and idealized goals, (b) getting followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the team or organization, and (c) moving followers to address higher-level needs. An elaboration of the dynamics of the transformation process is provided in his model of transformational and transactional leadership (Bass, 1985, 1990; Bass & Avolio, 1993, 1994). Additional clarification of the model is provided by Avolio in his book  Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces in Organizations (1999).

As can be seen in  Table 8.2, the model of transformational and transactional leadership incorporates seven different factors. These factors are also illustrated in the Full Range of Leadership model, which is provided in  Figure 8.2 on page 192. A discussion of each of these seven factors will help to clarify Bass’s model. This discussion will be divided into three parts: transformational factors (4), transactional factors (2), and the nonleadership, nontransactional factor (1).

Table 8.2 Leadership Factors

Transformational Leadership	Transactional Leadership	Laissez-Faire Leadership
Factor 1 Idealized influence Charisma	Factor 5 Contingent reward Constructive transactions	Factor 7 Laissez-faire Nontransactional
Factor 2 Inspirational motivation	Factor 6 Management by exception Active and passive Corrective transactions
Factor 3 Intellectual stimulation
Factor 4 Individualized consideration

Transformational Leadership Factors

Transformational leadership is concerned with improving the performance of followers and developing followers to their fullest potential (Avolio, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1990a). People who exhibit transformational leadership often have a strong set of internal values and ideals, and they are effective at motivating followers to act in ways that support the greater good rather than their own self-interests (Kuhnert, 1994). Individuals’ intentions to lead in a transformational manner appear related to effective transformational leadership behaviors (Gilbert, Horsman, & Kelloway, 2016).

Idealized Influence.

Factor 1 is called  charisma or  idealized influence. It is the emotional component of leadership (Antonakis, 2012). Idealized influence describes leaders who act as strong role models for followers; followers identify with these leaders and want very much to emulate them. These leaders usually have very high standards of moral and ethical conduct and can be counted on to do the right thing. They are deeply respected by followers, who usually place a great deal of trust in them. They provide followers with a vision and a sense of mission.

Description

Figure 8.2 Full Range of Leadership Model

The idealized influence factor is measured on two components: an  attributional component that refers to the attributions of leaders made by followers based on perceptions they have of their leaders, and a  behavioral component that refers to followers’ observations of leader behavior.

In essence, the charisma factor describes people who are special and who make others want to follow the vision they put forward. A person whose leadership exemplifies the charisma factor is Nelson Mandela, the first Black president of South Africa. Mandela is viewed as a leader with high moral standards and a vision for South Africa that resulted in monumental change in how the people of South Africa would be governed. His charismatic qualities and the people’s response to them transformed an entire nation.

Inspirational Motivation.

Factor 2 is called  inspiration or  inspirational motivation. This factor is descriptive of leaders who communicate high expectations to followers, inspiring them through motivation to become committed to and a part of the shared vision in the organization. In practice, leaders use symbols and emotional appeals to focus group members’ efforts to achieve more than they would in their own self-interest. Team spirit is enhanced by this type of leadership. An example of this factor would be a sales manager who motivates members of the sales force to excel in their work through encouraging words and pep talks that clearly communicate the integral role they play in the future growth of the company.

Intellectual Stimulation.

Factor 3 is  intellectual stimulation. It includes leadership that stimulates followers to be creative and innovative and to challenge their own beliefs and values as well as those of the leader and the organization.

This type of leadership supports followers as they try new approaches and develop innovative ways of dealing with organizational issues. It encourages followers to think things out on their own and engage in careful problem solving. An example of this type of leadership is a plant manager who promotes workers’ individual efforts to develop unique ways to solve problems that have caused slowdowns in production.

Individualized Consideration.

Factor 4 of transformational leadership is called  individualized consideration. This factor is representative of leaders who provide a supportive climate in which they listen carefully to the individual needs of followers. Leaders act as coaches and advisers while trying to assist followers in becoming fully actualized. These leaders may use delegation to help followers grow through personal challenges. An example of this type of leadership is a manager who spends time treating each employee in a caring and unique way. To some employees, the leader may give strong affiliation; to others, the leader may give specific directives with a high degree of structure.

In essence, transformational leadership produces greater effects than transactional leadership ( Figure 8.3). Whereas transactional leadership results in expected outcomes, transformational leadership results in performance that goes well beyond what is expected. In a meta-analysis of 39 studies in the transformational literature, for example, Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996) found that people who exhibited transformational leadership were perceived to be more effective leaders with better work outcomes than those who exhibited only transactional leadership. These findings were true for higher- and lower-level leaders, and for leaders in both public and private settings.

Description

Figure 8.3 The Additive Effect of Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership has an additive effect; it moves followers to accomplish more than what is usually expected of them. They become motivated to transcend their own self-interests for the good of the group or organization (Bass & Avolio, 1990a). In fact, transformational leaders are most likely to have a positive impact on followers when followers identify with or find meaning in their work (Mohammed, Fernando, & Caputi, 2013).

In a study of 220 employees at a large public transport company in Germany, Rowold and Heinitz (2007) found that transformational leadership augmented the impact of transactional leadership on employees’ performance and company profit. In addition, they found that transformational leadership and charismatic leadership were overlapping but unique constructs, and that both were different from transactional leadership.

Similarly, Nemanich and Keller (2007) examined the impact of transformational leadership on 447 employees from a large multinational firm who were going through a merger and being integrated into a new organization. They found that transformational leadership behaviors such as idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation were positively related to acquisition acceptance, job satisfaction, and performance.

Tims, Bakker, and Xanthopoulou (2011) examined the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement in 42 employees and their supervisors in two different organizations in the Netherlands. Findings revealed that employees became more engaged in their work (i.e., vigor, dedication, and absorption) when their supervisors were able to boost employees’ optimism through a transformational leadership style. These findings underscore the important role played by personal characteristics (i.e., optimism) in the transformational-leadership-performance process. Similarly, Hamstra, Van Yperen, Wisse, and Sassenberg (2014) found that transformational leaders were more likely than transactional leaders to promote achievement of followers’ mastery goals. This suggests that transformational leaders may be especially effective in environments where followers need to focus on learning, development, and mastering job-related tasks rather than a more competitive or performance-based work context. Transformational leaders can propel followers to even greater levels of success when they have a high-quality relationship based on trust, loyalty, and mutual respect (Notgrass, 2014).

Transactional Leadership Factors

Transactional leadership differs from transformational leadership in that the transactional leader does not individualize the needs of followers or focus on their personal development. Transactional leaders exchange things of value with followers to advance their own and their followers’ agendas (Kuhnert, 1994). Transactional leaders are influential because it is in the best interest of followers for them to do what the leader wants (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987).

Contingent Reward.

Factor 5,  contingent reward, is the first of two transactional leadership factors ( Figure 8.3). It is an exchange process between leaders and followers in which effort by followers is exchanged for specified rewards. With this kind of leadership, the leader tries to obtain agreement from followers on what must be done and what the payoffs will be for the people doing it. An example of this type of  constructive transaction is a parent who negotiates with a child about how much time the child can spend playing video games after doing homework assignments. Another example often occurs in the academic setting: A dean negotiates with a college professor about the number and quality of published works the professor needs to have written in order to receive tenure and promotion. Notgrass (2014) found that contingent rewards, or the leader’s use of clarifying or supporting achievement behaviors, are most effective when followers feel that they have a high-quality relationship with their leader.

Management by Exception.

Factor 6 is called  management by exception. It is leadership that involves corrective criticism, negative feedback, and negative reinforcement. Management by exception takes two forms:  active and passive. A leader using the active form of management by exception watches followers closely for mistakes or rule violations and then takes  corrective action. An example of active management by exception can be illustrated in the leadership of a sales supervisor who daily monitors how employees approach customers. The supervisor quickly corrects salespeople who are slow to approach customers in the prescribed manner. A leader using the passive form intervenes only after standards have not been met or problems have arisen. An example of passive management by exception is illustrated in the leadership of a supervisor who gives employees poor performance evaluations without ever talking with them about their prior work performance. In essence, both the active and passive management types use more negative reinforcement patterns than the positive reinforcement pattern described in Factor 5 under contingent reward.

Nonleadership Factor

In the model, the nonleadership factor diverges farther from transactional leadership and represents behaviors that are nontransactional.

Laissez-Faire.

Factor 7 describes leadership that falls at the far-right side of the transactional–transformational leadership continuum ( Figure 8.1). This factor represents the absence of leadership. As the French phrase implies, the  laissez-faire leader takes a “hands-off, let-things-ride” ( nontransactional) approach. This leader abdicates responsibility, delays decisions, gives no feedback, and makes little effort to help followers satisfy their needs. There is no exchange with followers or attempt to help them grow. An example of a laissez-faire leader is the president of a small manufacturing firm who calls no meetings with plant supervisors, has no long-range plan for the firm, acts detached, and makes little contact with employees. While laissez-faire leadership has traditionally been viewed negatively, recent research (Yang, 2015) argues that laissez-faire leadership may not be the absence of leadership, but instead may be a strategic behavioral choice by the leader to acknowledge and defer to followers’ abilities, decrease their dependency, and increase their self-determination, self-competence, and autonomy. In this case, the leader would be strategically performing laissez-faire leadership by empowering followers to lead.

Interestingly, research does indicate that leaders may be most effective when they combine transformational leadership behaviors with elements of laissez-faire and transactional leadership (Antonakis & House, 2014). This reiterates what most of the leadership theories in this book suggest: All approaches to leadership have strengths and weaknesses, and because leading effectively means consistently surveying follower, task, and environmental needs and pressures, oftentimes the best approach is a combination of leadership approaches.

Transformational Leadership Measurements

The popularity of transformational leadership has resulted in researchers developing a number of assessments to measure its characteristics and efficacy. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was one of the earliest and most widely used assessments of transformational leadership. The MLQ was developed by Bass (1985), based on a series of interviews he and his associates conducted with 70 senior executives in South Africa. These executives were asked to recall leaders who had raised their awareness to broader goals, moved them to higher motives, or inspired them to put others’ interests ahead of their own. The executives were then asked to describe how these leaders behaved—what they did to effect change. From these descriptions and from numerous other interviews with both junior and senior executives, Bass constructed the questions that make up the MLQ. The questions measure followers’ perceptions of a leader’s behavior for each of the factors in the Full Range of Leadership model ( Figure 8.2).

Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam (2003) assessed the psychometric properties of the MLQ using a business sample of more than 3,000 raters and found strong support for the validity of the MLQ. They found that the MLQ (Form 5X) clearly distinguished nine factors in the Full Range of Leadership model. Similarly, Hinkin and Schriesheim (2008) examined the empirical properties of the transactional and the nonleadership factors on the MLQ and identified several ways to use the questionnaire to generate more reliable and valid results. Since the MLQ was first designed, it has gone through many revisions, and it continues to be refined to strengthen its reliability and validity.

Based on a summary analysis of a series of studies that used the MLQ to predict how transformational leadership relates to outcomes such as effectiveness, Bryman (1992) and Bass and Avolio (1994) have suggested that the charisma and motivation factors on the MLQ are the most likely to be related to positive effects. Individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, and contingent reward are the next most important factors. Management by exception in its passive form has been found to be somewhat related to outcomes, and in its active form it has been found to be negatively related to outcomes. Generally, laissez-faire leadership has been found to be negatively related to outcomes such as effectiveness and satisfaction in organizations.

Other Transformational Perspectives

In addition to Bass’s (1985, 1990; Bass & Avolio, 1994) work, two other lines of research have contributed in unique ways to our understanding of the nature of transformational leadership. They are the research of Bennis and Nanus (1985, 2007) and the work of Kouzes and Posner (2002, 2017a). These scholars used similar qualitative research methods. They identified a number of middle- or senior-level leaders and conducted interviews with them, using open-ended, semi-structured questionnaires. From this information, they constructed their models of leadership.

Bennis and Nanus

Bennis and Nanus (2007) asked 90 leaders basic questions such as “What are your strengths and weaknesses?” “What past events most influenced your leadership approach?” and “What were the critical points in your career?” From the answers leaders provided to these questions, Bennis and Nanus identified four common strategies used by leaders in transforming organizations.

First, transforming leaders had a clear  vision of the future state of their organizations. It was an image of an attractive, realistic, and believable future (Bennis & Nanus, 2007, p. 89). The vision usually was simple, understandable, beneficial, and energy creating. The compelling nature of the vision touched the experiences of followers and pulled them into supporting the organization. When an organization has a clear vision, it is easier for people within the organization to learn how they fit in with the overall direction of the organization and even the society in general. It empowers them because they feel they are a significant dimension of a worthwhile enterprise (pp. 90–91). Bennis and Nanus found that, to be successful, the vision had to grow out of the needs of the entire organization and to be claimed by those within it. Although leaders play a large role in articulating the vision, the emergence of the vision originates from both the leaders and the followers.

Second, transforming leaders were  social architects for their organizations. This means they created a shape or form for the shared meanings people maintained within their organizations. These leaders communicated a direction that transformed their organization’s values and norms. In many cases, these leaders were able to mobilize people to accept a new group identity or a new philosophy for their organizations.

A good example of a transforming leader with a clear vision and who is a social architect for his organization is college football coach P. J. Fleck, who is highlighted in Case 6.3 on page 149. First as the coach at Western Michigan University and then at the University of Minnesota, Coach Fleck created a culture for these programs that emphasized athletes’ growth in four areas: academic, athletic, social, and spiritual. He was insistent that players assume leadership roles and consistently model the desired culture of the team. Coach Fleck would often repeat, “Bad teams, nobody leads. Average teams, coaches lead. Elite teams, players lead.”

The third strategy identified by Bennis and Nanus was that transforming leaders created  trust in their organizations by making their own positions clearly known and then standing by them. Trust has to do with being predictable or reliable, even in situations that are uncertain. In organizations, leaders built trust by articulating a direction and then consistently implementing the direction even though the vision may have involved a high degree of uncertainty. Bennis and Nanus (2007) found that when leaders established trust in an organization, it gave the organization a sense of integrity analogous to a healthy identity (p. 48).

Fourth, transforming leaders used  creative deployment of self through positive self-regard. Leaders knew their strengths and weaknesses, and they emphasized their strengths rather than dwelled on their weaknesses. Based on an awareness of their own competence, effective leaders were able to immerse themselves in their tasks and the overarching goals of their organizations. They were able to fuse a sense of self with the work at hand. Bennis and Nanus also found that positive self-regard in leaders had a reciprocal impact on followers, creating in them feelings of confidence and high expectations. In addition, leaders in the study were committed to learning and relearning, so in their organizations there was consistent emphasis on education.

Bennis and Nanus (2007) proposed that transformational leaders “move organizations from current to future states, create visions of potential opportunities for organizations, instill within employees [a] commitment to change and instill new cultures and strategies in organizations that mobilize and focus energy and resources” (p. 19).

Kouzes and Posner

Kouzes and Posner (2002, 2017a) developed their model by interviewing leaders about leadership. They interviewed more than 1,300 middle- and senior-level managers in private and public sector organizations and asked them to describe their “personal best” experiences as leaders. Based on a content analysis of these descriptions, Kouzes and Posner constructed a model of leadership.

The Kouzes and Posner model consists of five fundamental  practices that enable leaders to get extraordinary things accomplished: model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart. For each of the five practices of exemplary leadership, Kouzes and Posner also have identified two commitments that serve as strategies for practicing exemplary leadership.

Model the Way.

To model the way, leaders need to be clear about their own values and philosophy. They need to find their own voice and express it to others. Exemplary leaders set a personal example for others by their own behaviors. They also follow through on their promises and commitments and affirm the common values they share with others.

Inspire a Shared Vision.

Effective leaders create compelling visions that can guide people’s behavior. They are able to visualize positive outcomes in the future and communicate them to others. Leaders also listen to the dreams of others and show them how their dreams can be realized. Through inspiring visions, leaders challenge others to transcend the status quo to do something for others.

Challenge the Process.

Challenging the process means being willing to change the status quo and step into the unknown. It includes being willing to innovate, grow, and improve. Exemplary leaders are like pioneers: They want to experiment and try new things. They are willing to take risks to make things better. When exemplary leaders take risks, they do it one step at a time, learning from their mistakes as they go.

Enable Others to Act.

Outstanding leaders are effective at working with people. They build trust with others and promote collaboration. Teamwork and cooperation are highly valued by these leaders. They listen closely to diverse points of view and treat others with dignity and respect. They also allow others to make choices, and they support the decisions that others make. In short, they create environments where people can feel good about their work and how it contributes to the greater community.

Interestingly, research indicates that women tend to display transformational leadership through more enabling behaviors whereas men tend to enact more challenging behavior (Brandt & Laiho, 2013).

Encourage the Heart.

Leaders encourage the heart by rewarding others for their accomplishments. It is natural for people to want support and recognition. Effective leaders are attentive to this need and are willing to give praise to workers for jobs well done. They use authentic celebrations and rituals to show appreciation and encouragement to others. The outcome of this kind of support is greater collective identity and community spirit.

A later study by Caza and Posner (2019) found that the characteristic of “grit,” or perseverance, was related to some aspects of transformational leadership. High-grit leaders engaged in more frequent role modeling and innovating behaviors, but less inspiring behavior.

Overall, the Kouzes and Posner model emphasizes behaviors and has a prescriptive quality: It recommends what people need to do to become effective leaders. Kouzes and Posner (2002, p. 13) stressed that the five practices of exemplary leadership are available to everyone and are not reserved for those with “special” ability. The model is not about personality: It is about practice.

For this reason, Kouzes and Posner (2017b) fundamentally disagree with the trait approach to leadership, described in  Chapter 2, that views leadership as preordained or reserved for a special few leaders who are charismatic.

Leadership is not a gene. Neither is it a trait. There is just no hard evidence to suggest that leadership is imprinted in the DNA of some people and not others. One of the competencies you have is the ability to look ahead. The capacity to imagine the future is a fundamental defining characteristic of human beings, separating  Homo sapiens from other species. (p. 30)

To help leaders identify and measure the behaviors described in their model, Kouzes and Posner developed the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI). The LPI is a 360-degree leadership assessment tool that consists of 30 questions that assess individual leadership competencies. It has been widely used in leadership training and development. A review of the measurement properties of the LPI, based on answers from 2.8 million respondents, found the measure had good reliability and consistency across samples and populations and that the underlying five-factor structure has been sustained across a variety of studies and settings. Finally, scores from the LPI are positively related to employee engagement and perceptions of leader effectiveness (Posner, 2016).

HOW DOES THE TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP APPROACH WORK?

The transformational approach to leadership is a broad-based perspective that encompasses many facets and dimensions of the leadership process. In general, it describes how leaders can initiate, develop, and carry out significant changes in organizations. Although not definitive, the steps followed by transformational leaders usually take the following form.

Transformational leaders set out to empower followers and nurture them in change. They attempt to raise the consciousness in individuals and to get them to transcend their own self-interests for the sake of others. For example, Jung, Chow, and Wu (2003) studied upper-level leadership in 32 Taiwanese companies and found that transformational leadership was directly related to organizational innovation. Transformational leadership created a culture in which employees felt empowered and encouraged to freely discuss and try new things.

To create change, transformational leaders become strong role models for their followers. They have a highly developed set of moral values and a self-determined sense of identity (Avolio & Gibbons, 1988). They are confident, competent, and articulate, and they express strong ideals.

They listen to followers and are tolerant of opposing viewpoints. A spirit of cooperation often develops between these leaders and their followers. Followers want to emulate transformational leaders because they learn to trust them and believe in the ideas for which they stand.

It is common for transformational leaders to create a vision. The vision emerges from the collective interests of various individuals and units in an organization. The vision is a focal point for transformational leadership. It gives the leader and the organization a conceptual map for where the organization is headed; it gives meaning and clarifies the organization’s identity. Furthermore, the vision gives followers a sense of identity within the organization and also a sense of self-efficacy (Shamir et al., 1993).

The transformational approach also requires that leaders become social architects. This means that they make clear the emerging values and norms of the organization. They involve themselves in the culture of the organization and help shape its meaning. People need to know their roles and understand how they contribute to the greater purposes of the organization. Transformational leaders are out front in interpreting and shaping for organizations the shared meanings that exist within them. As Mason et al. (2014) pointed out, enacting transformational behaviors changes leaders too, not just followers.

Throughout the process, transformational leaders are effective at working with people. They build trust and foster collaboration with others. Transformational leaders encourage others and celebrate their accomplishments. In the end, transformational leadership results in people feeling better about themselves and their contributions to the greater common good.

Many of us have had transformational leaders in our lives. We tend to remember them as very special. They had an impact on who we are and what we have become. Transformational leaders were the people who trusted us and allowed us the space to experiment and grow. As described so poignantly in Box 8.1, transformational leaders are leaders who raise us up to be better people.

Box 8.1A Letter to Coach Z

The following letter was sent by a former student to his high school coach who was in the final stages of dying of cancer. While a student, Jeff was the runner-up to the state singles tennis title and went on to play No. 1 singles at a major university for four years where he was a two-time Mid-American Conference champion. He gave permission to publish this letter.

Dear Coach Z,

I wanted to write you a letter to express my sincere gratitude for the role you have played in my personal and professional development. I suspect you are aware of this fact, but my high school years were very challenging for me socially. My small stature and size brought tremendous teasing and shaming that profoundly affected my sense of self-esteem and self-worth. I found myself with very few friends and I experienced a deep loneliness and a strong desire to “escape” times of social interaction such as the noon hour. There was a strong culture of clique formation at our high school and I did not belong.

It was at these times that I would retreat to the safety of your office and the comfort of your friendship. This truly meant the world to me and was critical to my survival. As a 40-year old now, it blows my mind that you, then in your mid-50s, befriended me and cared for me. Even though your time was limited, you were so gracious to frequently offer me your undivided attention. I am convinced that I could not have become the person I am today without your influence in my life.

You have always believed in me and made me feel like I could do something exceptional. You always encouraged me and pushed me to dig deeper, work harder, and give it my all. You trained me in the areas of honesty, integrity, teamwork, and commitment. The lessons you’ve taught me have formed me and stayed with me throughout my life. Your influence has led me to achieve things in life that few would have thought possible.

It is my hope that this letter will honor you and that God will refresh and prosper you all the remaining days of your life.

Gratefully Yours,

Jeff

—Courtesy of Jeff Brink

STRENGTHS

In its present stage of development, the transformational approach has several strengths. First, transformational leadership has been widely researched from many different perspectives, including a series of qualitative studies of prominent leaders and CEOs in large, well-known organizations. It has also been the focal point for a large body of leadership research since its introduction in the 1970s. For example, content analysis of all the articles published in  The Leadership Quarterly from 1990 to 2000 showed that 34% of the articles were about transformational or charismatic leadership (Lowe & Gardner, 2001). In an updated review examining the period from 2000 to 2012, 39% of the articles published in 10 top-tier academic journals were about transformational or charismatic leadership (Dinh et al., 2014). In addition, qualitative research on transformational leadership, which has appeared in highly popular mass-market leadership books, has provided rich descriptions of the qualities and characteristics of transformational leaders.

Second, transformational leadership has intuitive appeal. The transformational perspective describes how the leader is out front advocating change for others; this concept is consistent with society’s popular notion of what leadership means. People are attracted to transformational leadership because it makes sense to them. It is appealing that a leader will provide a vision for the future. Transformational leaders are “movers and shakers” that get an organization moving when change is needed by getting followers to face the future and achieve results through their influence (Nicholls, 1988).

Third, transformational leadership treats leadership as a process that occurs between followers and leaders. One of the components of transformational leadership is individualized consideration (Bass, 1985). Because this process incorporates both the followers’ and the leader’s needs, leadership is not the sole responsibility of a leader but rather emerges from the interplay between leaders and followers. The needs of others are central to the transformational leader. As a result, followers gain a more prominent position in the leadership process because their attributions are instrumental in the evolving transformational process (Bryman, 1992, p. 176).

Fourth, the transformational approach provides a broader view of leadership that augments other leadership models. Many leadership models focus primarily on how leaders exchange rewards for achieved goals—the transactional process. The transformational approach provides an expanded picture of leadership that includes not only the exchange of rewards, but also leaders’ attention to the needs and growth of followers (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1985). Contingent rewards and transformational behaviors combine to explain employee job satisfaction (Puni, Mohammed, & Asamoah, 2018). In other words, followers respond to both transactional and transformational behaviors, which are encompassed in the Full Range of Leadership model ( Figure 8.2) that provides a comprehensive view of leadership.

Fifth, transformational leadership places a strong emphasis on followers’ needs, values, and morals. Burns (1978) suggested that transformational leadership involves attempts by leaders to move people to higher standards of moral responsibility. It includes motivating followers to transcend their own self-interests for the good of the team, organization, or community (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Shamir et al., 1993). Transformational leadership is fundamentally morally uplifting (Avolio, 1999). This emphasis sets the transformational approach apart from all other approaches to leadership because it suggests that leadership has a moral dimension. Therefore, the coercive uses of power by people such as Hitler, cult leader David Koresh, and Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte can be disregarded as models of leadership.

Finally, there is substantial evidence that transformational leadership is an effective form of leadership (Yukl, 1999). In a critique of transformational and charismatic leadership, Yukl reported that in studies using the MLQ to appraise leaders, transformational leadership was positively related to follower satisfaction, motivation, and performance. Furthermore, in studies that used interviews and observations, transformational leadership was shown to be effective in a variety of different situations. At the same time, transformational leadership has also been demonstrated to contribute to the leader’s personal growth (Notgrass, 2014).

CRITICISMS

Transformational leadership has several weaknesses. One criticism is that it lacks conceptual clarity. Because it covers such a wide range of activities and characteristics—creating a vision, motivating, being a change agent, building trust, giving nurturance, and acting as a social architect, to name a few—it is difficult to define exactly the parameters of transformational leadership. Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) critically reviewed the transformational leadership research and found the following weaknesses: lack of a clear conceptual definition, failure to outline a well-defined causal model that accounts for the unique effects of theoretical dimensions, and the confounding of the conceptualization and operationalization—a disconnect between the theory and how it is measured. For example, research by Tracey and Hinkin (1998) has shown substantial overlap between each of the Four  Is (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration), suggesting that the dimensions are not clearly delimited.

Furthermore, the parameters of transformational leadership often overlap with similar conceptualizations of leadership. Bryman (1992), for example, pointed out that transformational and charismatic leadership often are treated synonymously, even though in some models of leadership (e.g., Bass, 1985) charisma is only one component of transformational leadership. Others have questioned whether the four dimensions of transformational leadership (i.e., the Four  Is) are the reasons for transformational leadership or if they are simply descriptions of transformational leadership (e.g., Andersen, 2015; Tourish, 2013). At present, researchers are not sure if these dimensions predict transformational leadership or just help to explain the presence of transformational leadership.

In addition, Andersen (2015) suggested that transformational leadership was created to be used within social and political contexts—not in corporations. However, many researchers have been using the theory to explore managerial rather than political leadership.

Another criticism revolves around how transformational leadership is measured. Researchers typically have used some version of the MLQ to measure transformational leadership. However, some studies have challenged the validity of the MLQ. In some versions of the MLQ, the four factors of transformational leadership (the Four  Is) correlate highly with each other, which means they are not distinct factors (Tejeda, Scandura, & Pillai, 2001). In addition, some of the transformational factors correlate with the transactional and laissez-faire factors, which means they may not be unique to the transformational model (Tejeda et al., 2001). It has also been suggested that transformational leadership could be better measured and understood through a narrative perspective (Andersen, 2015; Tengblad, 2012). Reviews of research on transformational leadership reveal that the factor structure does not replicate across studies (Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013).

A third criticism is that transformational leadership treats leadership as a personality trait or personal predisposition rather than a behavior that people can learn (Bryman, 1992, pp. 100–102). If it is a trait, training people in this approach becomes more problematic because it is difficult to teach people how to change their traits. Even though many scholars, including Weber, House, and Bass, emphasized that transformational leadership is concerned with leader behaviors, such as how leaders involve themselves with followers, there is an inclination to see this approach from a trait perspective. Perhaps this problem is exacerbated because the word  transformational creates images of one person being the most active component in the leadership process. For example, even though “creating a vision” involves follower input, there is a tendency to see transformational leaders as visionaries. There is also a tendency to see transformational leaders as people who have special qualities that  transform others. These images accentuate a trait characterization of transformational leadership.

Fourth, researchers have not established that transformational leaders are actually able to transform individuals and organizations (Antonakis, 2012). There is evidence that indicates that transformational leadership is associated with positive outcomes, such as organizational effectiveness; however, studies have not yet clearly established a causal link between transformational leaders and changes in followers or organizations. However, there may be a glimmer of hope in this regard as Arthur and Hardy (2014) were able to use an experimental design to evaluate the effectiveness of a transformational leadership intervention in remediating poor performance in an organization. This provides initial evidence that transformational leadership behaviors may result in some expected positive changes.

A fifth criticism some have made is that transformational leadership is elitist and antidemocratic (Avolio, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993). Transformational leaders often play a direct role in creating changes, establishing a vision, and advocating new directions. This gives the strong impression that the leaders are acting independently of followers or putting themselves above the followers’ needs. Although this criticism of elitism has been refuted by Bass and Avolio (1993) and Avolio (1999), who contended that transformational leaders can be directive and participative as well as democratic and authoritarian, the substance of the criticism raises valid questions about transformational leadership. The transformational leadership approach has focused predominantly on leaders at the top echelons of organizations. However, some research suggests that transformational leadership can occur at all levels of the organization (Lovelace, Neely, Allen, & Hunter, 2019).

Related to this criticism, some have argued that transformational leadership suffers from a “heroic leadership” bias (Yukl, 1999). Transformational leadership stresses that it is the  leader who moves  followers to do exceptional things. By focusing primarily on the leader, researchers have failed to give attention to shared leadership or reciprocal influence. Followers can influence leaders just as leaders can influence followers. More attention should be directed toward how leaders can encourage followers to challenge the leader’s vision and share in the leadership process.

Another criticism of transformational leadership is that it has the potential to be abused. Transformational leadership is concerned with changing people’s values and moving them to a new vision. But who is to determine whether the new directions are good and more affirming? Who decides that a new vision is a better vision? If the values to which leaders are moving their followers are not better, and if the set of human values is not more redeeming, then the leadership must be challenged. However, the dynamics of how followers challenge leaders or respond to their visions are not fully understood. There is a need to understand how transformational leaders affect followers psychologically and how leaders respond to followers’ reactions. In fact, Burns (1978) argued that understanding this area (i.e., charisma and follower worship) is one of the central problems in leadership studies today (Bailey & Axelrod, 2001). The charismatic nature of transformational leadership presents significant risks for organizations because it can be used for destructive purposes (Conger, 1999; Howell & Avolio, 1993). A meta-analysis of psychopathic tendencies and transformational leadership showed that psychopathic people are somewhat more likely to emerge as leaders, but they are viewed as less effective leaders. Further, this study found that women are penalized for displaying psychopathic tendencies but that men may be rewarded for similar behaviors (Landay, Harms, & Credé, 2019).

History is full of examples of charismatic individuals who used coercive power to lead people to evil ends. For this reason, transformational leadership puts a burden on individuals and organizations to be aware of how they are being influenced and in what directions they are being asked to go. Christie et al. (2011) warn that astute followers need to be vigilant and pay careful attention to the vision of their leader, whether the vision is collective or self-focused, whether the leader is tolerant or intolerant of opposing viewpoints, and whether or not the leader is caring of followers. The potential for abuse of transformational leadership is mitigated when followers are aware and engaged in how they are being led.

Another criticism of the transformational leadership approach is that it may not be viewed as effective in all national cultures. Despite prior claims that transformational leadership is universal (Bass, 1997), this is not supported by data. A meta-analysis of more than 57,000 employees in 34 countries found that the value of transformational leadership behaviors may be limited in developed economies such as Western Europe and North America, while transformational leadership is most effective in Africa, the Middle East, South America, and parts of Southeast Asia (Credé, Jong, & Harms, 2019).

A final potential weakness of transformational leadership is the fact that it may not be well received by millennials (Anderson et al., 2017). As millennials continue to replace baby boomers in the workforce, organizations are recognizing that they are having to modify previous ways of doing things to meet millennials’ needs. Transformational leadership is one such example. Drawing from the individualistic orientation of many millennials, Anderson and colleagues predict that transformational leaders may be less effective because this cohort may be less willing to collaborate with others to achieve common goals. Relatedly, today’s transformational leaders communicate in a way to encourage followers to prioritize organizational and task needs and goals over individual interests (Anderson et al., 2017). However, it is predicted that this will be met with resistance as millennials have expressed a greater desire for work–life balance and want to “work to live” rather than “live to work” (Ng, Schweitzer, & Lyons, 2010). Finally, it has been suggested that because millennials expect frequent promotions and value extrinsic rewards, two of the fundamental components of transformational leadership—idealized influence and inspirational motivation—may be ineffective (Anderson et al., 2017).

APPLICATION

Rather than being a model that tells leaders what to do, transformational leadership provides a broad set of generalizations of what is typical of leaders who are transforming or who work in transforming contexts. Unlike other leadership approaches, such as the situational approach (discussed in  Chapter 5), transformational leadership does not provide a clearly defined set of assumptions about how leaders should act in a particular situation to be successful. Rather, it provides a general way of thinking about leadership that emphasizes ideals, inspiration, innovations, and individual concerns. Transformational leadership requires that leaders be aware of how their own behavior relates to the needs of their followers and the changing dynamics within their organizations.

Bass and Avolio (1990a) suggested that transformational leadership can be taught to people at all levels in an organization and that it can positively affect a firm’s performance. It can be used in recruitment, selection and promotion, and training and development. It can also be used in improving team development, decision-making groups, quality initiatives, and reorganizations (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Programs designed to develop transformational leadership usually require that leaders or their associates take the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 1990b) or a similar questionnaire to determine the leader’s particular strengths and weaknesses in transformational leadership. These assessments help leaders pinpoint areas in which they could improve their leadership. For example, leaders might learn that it would be beneficial if they were more confident in expressing their goals, that they need to spend more time nurturing followers, or that they need to be more tolerant of opposing viewpoints. Such transformational leadership measures can be springboards to helping leaders improve a whole series of their leadership attributes.

One particular aspect of transformational leadership that has been given special emphasis in training programs is the process of building a vision. For example, it has become quite common for training programs to have leaders write elaborate statements that describe their own five-year career plans and their perceptions of the future directions for their organizations. Working with leaders on vision statements is one way to help them enhance their transformational leadership behavior. Another important aspect of training is teaching leaders to exhibit greater individual consideration and promote intellectual stimulation for their followers. Lowe et al. (1996) found that this is particularly valuable for lower-level leaders in organizations.

The desire to provide effective training in how to be more successful in demonstrating transactional and transformational leadership resulted in the development of a guide by Sosik and Jung (2010). This comprehensive, evidence-based approach includes self-assessments, 360-degree feedback, and leadership development planning. Their work serves as a thorough training guide that explains how, when, and why the full range of leadership behaviors work.

Overall, transformational leadership provides leaders with information about a full range of their behaviors, from nontransactional to transactional to transformational. In the  next section, we provide some actual leadership examples to which the principles of transformational leadership can be applied.

CASE STUDIES AND SELF-ASSESSMENT

In the following section, three brief case studies ( Cases 8.1,  8.2, and  8.3) from very different contexts are provided. Each case describes a situation in which transformational leadership is present to some degree. The first case looks at the efforts of a new CEO to transform the traditional culture of aircraft equipment manufacturing company. The second case comes from the perspective of a college professor and archaeologist who leads student groups on digs in the Middle East. The final case profiles the Friendship Bench project that trains grandmothers to help tackle depression in Zimbabwe. The questions at the end of each case point to some of the unique issues surrounding the use of transformational leadership in ongoing organizations.

Case 8.1 The Vision Failed

High Tech Engineering (HTE) is a 50-year-old family-owned manufacturing company with 250 employees that produces small parts for the aircraft industry. The president of HTE is Harold Barelli, who came to the company from a smaller business with strong credentials as a leader in advanced aircraft technology. Before Barelli, the only other president of HTE was the founder and owner of the company. The organizational structure at HTE was very traditional, and it was supported by a very rich organizational culture.

As the new president, Barelli sincerely wanted to transform HTE. He wanted to prove that new technologies and advanced management techniques could make HTE one of the best manufacturing companies in the country. To that end, Barelli created a vision statement that was displayed throughout the company. The two-page statement, which had a strong democratic tone, described the overall purposes, directions, and values of the company.

During the first three years of Barelli’s tenure as president, several major reorganizations took place at the company. These were designed by Barelli and a select few of his senior managers. The intention of each reorganization was to implement advanced organizational structures to bolster the declared HTE vision.

Yet the major outcome of each of the changes was to dilute the leadership and create a feeling of instability among the employees. Most of the changes were made from the top down, with little input from lower or middle management. Some of the changes gave employees more control in circumstances where they needed less, whereas other changes limited employee input in contexts where employees should have been given more input. There were some situations in which individual workers reported to three different bosses, and other situations in which one manager had far too many workers to oversee. Rather than feeling comfortable in their various roles at HTE, employees began to feel uncertain about their responsibilities and how they contributed to stated goals of the company. The overall effect of the reorganizations was a precipitous drop in worker morale and production.

In the midst of all the changes, the vision that Barelli had for the company was lost. The instability that employees felt made it difficult for them to support the company’s vision. People at HTE complained that although mission statements were displayed throughout the company, no one understood in which direction they were going.

To the employees at HTE, Barelli was an enigma. HTE was an American company that produced U.S. products, but Barelli drove a foreign car. Barelli claimed to be democratic in his style of leadership, but he was arbitrary in how he treated people. He acted in a nondirective style toward some people, and he showed arbitrary control toward others. He wanted to be seen as a hands-on manager, but he delegated operational control of the company to others while he focused on external customer relations and matters of the board of directors.

At times Barelli appeared to be insensitive to employees’ concerns. He wanted HTE to be an environment in which everyone could feel empowered, but he often failed to listen closely to what employees were saying.

He seldom engaged in open, two-way communication. HTE had a long, rich history with many unique stories, but the employees felt that Barelli either misunderstood or did not care about that history.

Four years after arriving at HTE, Barelli stepped down as president after his operations officer ran the company into a large debt and cash-flow crisis. His dream of building HTE into a world-class manufacturing company was never realized.

Questions

1. If you were consulting with the HTE board of directors soon after Barelli started making changes, what would you advise them regarding Barelli’s leadership from a transformational perspective?

2. Did Barelli have a clear vision for HTE? Was he able to implement it?

3. How effective was Barelli as a change agent and social architect for HTE?

4. What would you advise Barelli to do differently if he had the chance to return as president of HTE?

Case 8.2 An Exploration in Leadership

Every year, Dr. Cook, a college professor, leads a group of 25 college students to the Middle East on an archaeological dig that usually lasts about eight weeks. The participants, who come from big and small colleges throughout the country, usually have little prior knowledge or background in what takes place during an excavation. Dr. Cook enjoys leading these expeditions because he likes teaching students about archaeology and because the outcomes of the digs actually advance his own scholarly work.

While planning for his annual summer excavation, Dr. Cook told the following story:

This summer will be interesting because I have 10 people returning from last year. Last year was quite a dig. During the first couple of weeks everything was very disjointed. Team members seemed unmotivated and tired. In fact, there was one time early on when it seemed as if nearly half the students were either physically ill or mentally exhausted. Students seemed lost and uncertain about the meaning of the entire project.

For example, it is our tradition to get up every morning at 4:30 a.m. to depart for the excavation site at 5:00 a.m. However, during the first weeks of the dig, few people were ever ready on time, even after several reminders.

Every year it takes some time for people to learn where they fit with each other and with the purposes of the dig. The students all come from such different backgrounds. Some are from small, private, religious schools, and others are from large state universities. Each comes with a different agenda, different skills, and different work habits. One person may be a good photographer, another a good artist, and another a good surveyor. It is my job to complete the excavation with the resources available to us.

At the end of Week 2, I called a meeting to assess how things were going. We talked about a lot of things including personal things, how our work was progressing, and what we needed to change. The students seemed to appreciate the chance to talk at this meeting. Each of them described their special circumstances and hopes for the summer.

I told the students several stories about past digs; some were humorous, and others highlighted accomplishments. I shared my particular interests in this project and how I thought we as a group could accomplish the work that needed to be done at this important historical site. In particular, I stressed two points: (a) that they shared the responsibility for the successful outcome of the venture, and (b) that they had independent authority to design, schedule, and carry out the details of their respective assignments, with the director and other senior staff available at all times as advisers and resource persons. In regard to the departure time issue, I told the participants that the standard departure time on digs was 5:00 a.m.

Well, shortly after our meeting I observed a real shift in the group attitude and atmosphere. People seemed to become more involved in the work, there was less sickness, and there was more camaraderie. All assignments were completed without constant prodding and in a spirit of mutual support. Each morning at 5:00 a.m. everyone was ready to go.

I find that each year my groups are different. It’s almost as if each of them has a unique personality. Perhaps that is why I find it so challenging. I try to listen to the students and use their particular strengths. It really is quite amazing how these students can develop in eight weeks. They really become good at archaeology, and they accomplish a great deal.

This coming year will again be different because of the 10 returning “veterans.”

Questions

1. How is this an example of transformational leadership?

2. Where are Dr. Cook’s strengths on the Full Range of Leadership model ( Figure 8.2)?

3. What is the vision Dr. Cook has for the archaeology excavations?

Case 8.3 Grandmothers and Benches

The invitation of a park bench and the compassion of a grandmother are saving lives in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe, an African nation of more than 16 million people, had only 12 psychiatrists available to meet the mental health needs of the entire country. Dr. Dixon Chibanda is one of them (Chibanda, 2017c; Nuwer, 2018).

After losing a young patient he had treated for depression to suicide because she and her mother could not afford the $15 bus fare to come to his office for treatment, Dr. Chibanda realized that the traditional delivery of mental health care—offering services in a facility and waiting for patients to come to him—would not work in his country. After much soul searching and consideration of the effectiveness of his role as a psychiatrist in Zimbabwe, Dr. Chibanda had an epiphany.

Suicide is not unusual when it comes to mental health concerns. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), suicide is the leading cause of death of those ages 15 to 29 worldwide. Globally, more than 300 million people suffer from depression, according to the WHO. Depression is the world’s leading cause of disability and contributes to 800,000 suicides per year, the majority of which occur in developing countries (Nuwer, 2018).

Depression, often the result of loneliness, abuse, conflict, and violence, is a treatable mental illness. But treatment needs to be available and affordable, which are large concerns for a country like Zimbabwe with extremely limited resources.

In 2006, Dr. Chibanda began leading a team of Zimbabwean researchers in testing new ways of addressing anxiety and depression disorders and making treatment accessible to those who need it (Chibanda, 2017a). With no money or facilities available, he accessed the most abundant and reliable resource he could think of: grandmothers. Thus, the Friendship Bench approach was conceived.

The Friendship Bench involves the engagement and training of laypeople—grandmothers, to be precise—from local communities, as well as the integration of digital technologies.

Why grandmothers? Grandmothers are often a trusted, cultural cornerstone in Zimbabwean communities. “It suddenly dawned on me that actually, one of the most reliable resources we have in Africa are grandmothers. Yes, grandmothers. And I thought, grandmothers are in every community. There are hundreds of them” (Chibanda, 2017c).

In addition, Dr. Chibanda realized that grandmothers, unlike many younger workers, were more likely to stay in place and not leave the communities to seek other opportunities. Furthermore, many grandmothers were already doing community work, and association with this program would reinforce their role in the community.

“When we started, we didn’t know what the core competencies were . . . Later we discovered that our lay therapists needed strong listening skills, an ability to convey empathy and an ability to reflect—all skills the grandmothers had and could develop further” (WHO, 2018, p. 377).

Training these community counselors involved the application of basic cognitive therapy (often referred to as “talk therapy”) concepts. The grandmothers were taught to adopt a nonjudgmental and practical approach, allowing the clients to discuss their challenges and talk through possible solutions. Dr. Chibanda’s strategy was to “empower them [the grandmothers] with the skills to provide behavior activation, [and] activity scheduling; and support them using digital technology. You know, mobile phone technology. Pretty much everyone in Africa has a mobile phone today” (Chibanda, 2017c).

The program launched in 2007, and Dr. Chibanda spent the first four years of the program working with 14 grandmothers and his colleague, Petra Mesu, to develop a “culturally appropriate and evidence-based intervention they could deliver” (WHO, 2018, p. 377). Together, they developed a therapy focused on problem solving that incorporated the native Shona language and familiar, local cultural concepts.

The first step of the program is screening, which is done at a health facility. Using a locally developed diagnosis tool called the Shona Symptom Questionnaire, clients are evaluated as to whether they are suffering from mental illness and what form of mental illness. If it is found that they are, then they are referred to the Friendship Bench where they meet with one of the trained community counselors (the grandmothers). The Friendship Bench is a literal wooden park bench, initially located in discreet areas around the health facility, where patient and grandmother (counselor) can openly discuss a patient’s concerns in a comfortable setting. Due to the growing acceptance of the program, these benches are now more publicly visible.

As part of their training, counselors are taught to use language and terms familiar to their clients such as  kuvhura pfungwa (“opening the mind”),  kusimudzira (“uplifting”), and  kusimbisa (“to strengthen”). Many of the clients suffer with depression, which is commonly referred to as  kufungisisa (“thinking too much”) in the Shona language.

“They provide six sessions of individual problem-solving therapy to each patient and refer those at risk of suicide to their immediate supervisors. The first session takes an hour or more, during which the grandmother listens, establishes a rapport with the client, and takes notes. Their notes are reviewed regularly by the team, together with the grandmothers, particularly during debrief sessions. The sessions are recorded for their supervisors to monitor,” said Dr. Chibanda. “Afterwards, the grandmother reflects on what the client said and decides what needs to be done with the other grandmothers. Subsequent sessions with the client can be quite short, 20–30 minutes, because the client has an understanding of what to focus on” (WHO, 2018, p. 377).

Technology plays an important role in the program. To store patient data, the team uses a secure platform combined with cloud computing. “Each patient receives text messages between sessions to encourage their problem-solving efforts. When a client does not turn up for a session on the bench, we call them and if there is no response, the grandmother and a health professional visit the client’s home,” Dr. Chibanda said (WHO, 2018, p. 377).

Dedicated to the success of the program, Dr. Chibanda ran the initial pilot in Mbare, using his own salary to pay for supplies and space rental for the training. The program would eventually receive funding from the National Healthcare Trust, Zimbabwe and other organizations.

Some of the grandmothers are paid, receiving an allowance from their city’s health department. During the clinical trials, funding was available, but once those trials concluded, that funding dried up and Dr. Chibanda was concerned the grandmothers might cease working. To his surprise, they did not. When he and his colleagues looked into why, they found the grandmothers exhibited negative mental health conditions of their own, and the team hypothesized that perhaps the work the grandmothers were doing helped them as well, enabling them to expand their own well-being and resilience to adversity.

Dr. Chibanda’s own mother came up with the income-generating model for the grandmothers. “After finishing sessions on the bench, the grandmothers sit in a circle and share the challenges they face with their colleagues, while crocheting bags with recycled plastic to sell. Now, after completing therapy, the grandmothers give their patients further support and show them how to make the bags. So, this is a forum for problem solving and income generation” (WHO, 2018, p. 377).

The success of the program speaks for itself. In 2017, the program had been scaled into more than 70 communities, with “hundreds of grandmothers” providing mental health services in those communities. More than 30,000 people have received treatment on the Friendship Bench. “Our results—this was a clinical trial—in fact, this clinical trial showed that grandmothers were more effective at treating depression than doctors” (Chibanda, 2017c).

“When we compared the Friendship Bench approach to standard care, plus information, education, and support on common mental disorders, we found that after nine months the Friendship Bench patients had a significantly lower risk of symptoms than the standard of care group,” Dr. Chibanda said (WHO, 2018, p. 377).

Not surprisingly, Chibanda sees the potential in expanding the program globally. Even in developed countries, the availability of mental health professionals is rapidly declining, with waiting times to receive care increasing to dangerous levels. “In the United Kingdom, thousands of people attempt suicide while waiting, sometimes for months, on the National Health Service list to see a psychologist. Similarly, long waiting lists have been reported in the United States” (Chibanda, 2017b).

Dr. Chibanda notes that today there are more than 600 million people worldwide who are above 65, with this number expected to expand to 1.5 billion people by the year 2050. He envisions “a global network of grandmothers in every city in the world who are trained in evidence-based talk therapy, supported through digital platforms, networked. And they will make a difference in communities. They will reduce the treatment gap for mental, neurological and substance-use disorders” (Chibanda, 2017c).

The realization of this vision has already begun. The program has expanded to rural areas in Zimbabwe and is developing a component for adolescents. The Friendship Bench approach is being implemented in Malawi with plans for it to be used in Zanzibar, United Republic of Tanzania. Its use is even being explored in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (WHO, 2018, p. 377).

Questions

1. Based on the definition of transformational leadership in this chapter:

a. What aspects of the implementation of the Friendship Bench and the effectiveness of the grandmothers do you see as related to the transformational leadership processes? Explain why.

b. Are there aspects of this process outlined in this case study that you would classify as transactional leadership? Why?

2. Charisma and its relationship to transformational leadership was discussed at length and outlined in  Table 8.1. View Dr. Dixon Chibanda’s 2017 TED Talk at  www.ted.com/talks/dixon_chibanda_why_i_train_grandmothers_to_treat_depression and respond to the following:

a. Do you perceive Dr. Chibanda to be a charismatic leader? Why or why not?

b. What about the grandmothers? What characteristics of charismatic leadership, if any, would you ascribe to them? Explain your answer.

c. Bass suggested that “charisma is a necessary but not sufficient condition for transformational leadership.” Based on the elements of this case study, would you agree or disagree? Why?

3. How do each of the leadership factors of idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration relate to this case?

4. Bennis and Nanus expanded on the transformational perspective by identifying four common strategies for transformational leaders. Discuss how each of these relates to Dr. Chibanda and the grandmothers:

a. Clear vision

b. Social architect

c. Creation of trust

d. Creative deployment of self

5. Kouzes and Posner identified five fundamental practices of transformational leaders. Discuss how these apply to this case:

a. Model the way

b. Inspire a shared vision

c. Challenge the process

d. Enable others to act

e. Encourage the heart

6. The chapter lists seven criticisms of the transformational leadership model. Select three of these and address them with respect to this case.

Leadership Instrument

The Transformational Leadership Inventory developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) provides a measure of transactional and transformational leadership. The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine which style of leadership you tend to use, transformational or transactional. If you have held leadership positions in the past, you might have some idea which style you tend to use. Even if you have no leadership experience, this self-assessment can provide a starting point for you to determine which style you are more likely to use.

Transformational Leadership Inventory

Purpose: The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine which style of leadership you intend to use, transformational or transactional.

Instructions: To respond to the following questions, consider a time when you have been a leader of a group. Read each of the following statements and select the response that best describes your leadership behavior as a member of this group.

Key: 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree

1.	I have a clear understanding of where my group is going.	1	2	3	4	5
2.	I always give others positive feedback when they perform well.	1	2	3	4	5
3.	I paint an interesting picture of the future for our group.	1	2	3	4	5
4.	I give special recognition to group members when their work is very good.	1	2	3	4	5
5.	I am always seeking new opportunities for the group.	1	2	3	4	5
6.	I commend others when they do a better than average job.	1	2	3	4	5
7.	I inspire others with my plans for the future.	1	2	3	4	5
8.	I frequently acknowledge others’ good performance.	1	2	3	4	5

Scoring and Interpretation

Write the number you selected for each question in the blanks in the following box.

Transformational Leadership	Transactional Leadership
1. ______	2. ______
3. ______	4. ______
5. ______	6. ______
7. ______	8. ______
Total: ______	Total: ______

· Transformational Leadership (Identifying and Articulating a Vision): Identifying new opportunities for a leader’s unit/division/company, and developing, articulating, and inspiring others with a vision of the future.

· Transactional Leadership (Contingent Reward): Promising or delivering rewards to followers, contingent on their performance.

Your scores for each dimension (transformational or transactional) can range from 4 to 20. In general, scores from 4 to 12 represent lower levels of your preference for the leadership style, and scores above 12 indicate higher levels of your preference for the leadership style.

Source: Adapted from Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors.  The Leadership Quarterly,  1(2), 107–142.

Summary

One of the most encompassing approaches to leadership—transformational leadership—is concerned with the process of how certain leaders are able to inspire followers to accomplish great things. This approach stresses that leaders need to understand and adapt to the needs and motives of followers. Transformational leaders are recognized as change agents who are good role models, who can create and articulate a clear vision for an organization, who empower followers to meet higher standards, who act in ways that make others want to trust them, and who give meaning to organizational life.

Transformational leadership emerged from and is rooted in the writings of Burns (1978) and Bass (1985). The works of Bennis and Nanus (1985, 2007) and Kouzes and Posner (2002, 2017a) are also representative of transformational leadership. Qualitative studies provided additional perspectives on transformational leadership and served as guides for practicing managers.

There are several positive features of the transformational approach, including that it is a popular model that has received a lot of attention by researchers, it has strong intuitive appeal, it emphasizes the importance of followers in the leadership process, it goes beyond traditional transactional models and broadens leadership to include the growth of followers, and it places strong emphasis on morals and values. Transformational leadership has also proven to be an effective form of leadership that is positively related to follower satisfaction, motivation, and performance.

Balancing against the positive features of transformational leadership are several weaknesses. These include that the approach lacks conceptual clarity and a well-defined causal model; it is based on the MLQ, which has been challenged by some research; it creates a framework that implies that transformational leadership has a trait-like quality; it is sometimes seen as elitist and undemocratic; it suffers from a “heroic leadership” bias; and it has the potential to be used counterproductively in negative ways by leaders. Finally, transformational leadership may not be viewed as an effective leadership approach in all national cultures and among millennials. Despite the weaknesses, transformational leadership appears to be a valuable and widely used approach.

Descriptions of Images and Figures

Back to Figure

LEGEND

Nonleadership

· LF Laissez-Faire

Transactional

· MBE-P Management by Exception, Passive

· MBE-A Management by Exception, Active

· CR Contingent Reward

Transformational Four I’s

· Idealized Influence

· Inspirational Motivation

· Intellectual Stimulation

· Individualized Consideration

Back to Figure

Transformational leadership equals idealized influence plus inspirational motivation plus intellectual stimulation plus individualized consideration. Transactional leadership equals contingent reward plus management by exception. Transformational leadership and expected outcomes from transactional leadership lead to performance beyond expectations.