msl201l02-theories-of-leadership-sh1

lOMoARcPSD|21126671

MSL201L02 Theories of Leadership

SH1

Advanced Leadership (Liberty University)

Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity

Timothy A. Judge and Ronald F. Piccolo

(1998) noted, to Burns the difference between

transformational and transactional leadership is

in terms of what leaders and followers offer one

another. Transformational leaders offer a purpose

that transcends short-term goals and focuses on

higher order intrinsic needs. Transactional

leaders, in contrast, focus on the proper exchange

of resources. If transformational leadership

results in followers identifying with the needs of

the leader, the transactional leader gives

leadership on Burns’s (1978) conceptualization,

with several modifications or elaborations. First,

Bass did not agree with Burns that

transformational and transactional leadership

represent opposite ends of a single continuum.

Bass argued that transformational and

transactional leadership are separate concepts,

and further argued that the best leaders are both

transformational and transactional. Second, Bass

elaborated considerably on the behaviors that

The four dimensions of transformational

leadership are charisma or idealized influence,

inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation,

and individualized consideration. Charisma, or

idealized influence, is the degree to which the

leader behaves in admirable ways that cause

followers to identify with the leader. Charismatic

leaders display conviction, take stands, and

appeal to followers on an emotional level.

the task at hand. Intellectual stimulation is the

degree to which the leader challenges

assumptions, takes risks, and solicits followers’

ideas. Leaders with this trait stimulate and

encourage creativity in their followers.

Individualized consideration is the degree to

which the leader attends to each follower’s

needs, acts as a mentor or coach to the follower,

and listens to the follower’s concerns and needs.

Apart from its central role in

charismatic leadership was the first to use the

concept in contemporary organizational

research. Since that time, there have been many

studies of charismatic leadership (e.g., House,

Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Howell & Frost, 1989;

Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998). As we

note later, it is clear that transformational

leadership and charismatic leadership theories

have much in common, and in important ways,

each literature has contributed to the other.

leader sets up constructive transactions or

exchanges with followers: The leader clarifies

expectations and establishes the rewards for

meeting these expectations. In general,

management by exception is the degree to

which the leader takes corrective action on the

basis of results of leader–follower transactions.

As noted by Howell and Avolio (1993), the

difference between management by

—passive lies in the timing of the leader’s

intervention. Active leaders monitor follower

behavior, anticipate problems, and take

serious difficulties. Passive leaders wait until the

action.

avoid making decisions, hesitate in taking action,

and are absent when needed. Although laissez-

faire leadership bears some resemblance to

management by exception—passive leadership,

researchers have argued that laissez-faire

leadership, because it represents the absence of

any leadership (transformational or

transactional), should be treated separately from

the other transactional dimensions (Avolio, 1999;

Bass, 1998). Accordingly, we treat laissez-faire

have been investigated in scores of research

studies. Transformational leadership has proven

to be particularly popular. A search of keywords

in materials published from 1990 to 2003 in the

PsycINFO database revealed that there have

been more studies on transformational or

charismatic leadership than on all other popular

theories of leadership (e.g., least preferred

coworker theory, path-goal theory, normative

decision theory,

studies. Studies have used both subjective

perceptions of effective leaders (Judge & Bono,

2000) and hard economic criteria (Geyer &

Steyrer, 1998). There have been studies of

leaders in a wide variety of settings, including the

military (Kane & Tremble, 2000), education (Koh,

Steers, & Terborg, 1995), and business (Howell &

Avolio, 1993), and at various levels, from

entrepreneurial CEOs (Baum, Locke, &

Kirkpatrick, 1998) to supervisors (Howell & Hall-

were far from trivial, and they generalized across

studies.

styles build on the transactional base in

association with transformational leadership.

theoretical reasons to believe that

leadership and noted “consistent honoring of

dependability, and perceptions of consistency

for transformational leadership” (p. 11). Thus, it is

Applied Psychology. Vol. 89, No. 5, 755–756. Retrieved from http://www.timothy-judge.com/TA-TF

%20Paper--JAP%20published.pdf