5 assignements needed by saturday morning

profiletedy.r
style_1.pdf

117

Journal of Business Studies Quarterly

2014, Volume 5, Number 4 ISSN 2152-1034

Situational, Transformational, and Transactional Leadership and

Leadership Development

Jim Allen McCleskey

Abstract

In order to advance our knowledge of leadership, it is necessary to understand where the study

of leadership has been. McCleskey (2014) argued that the study of leadership spans more than

100 years. This manuscript describes three seminal leadership theories and their development.

Analysis of a sampling of recent articles in each theory is included. The manuscript also

discusses the concept of leadership development in light of those three seminal theories and

offers suggestions for moving forward both the academic study of leadership and the practical

application of research findings on the field.

Keywords: Leadership, Situational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Transformational

Leadership, Development, Review

Introduction

This manuscript analyzes three seminal leadership theories: situational leadership,

transformational leadership (TL), and transactional leadership. It begins with introductory

comments about the academic field of leadership, continues with a look at the three theories

including their history and development, and proceeds to a micro-level, examining several recent

published studies in each area. It presents a comparison and contrast of the key principles of

each. The manuscript also discusses modern leadership challenges and leadership development

in the context of all three theories. First, a brief history of leadership follows.

Leadership Theory

One of the earliest studies of leadership, Galton’s (1869) Hereditary Genius emphasized

a basic concept that informed popular ideas about leadership (Zaccaro, 2007). The idea is that

leadership is a characteristic ability of extraordinary individuals. This conception of leadership,

known as the great man theory, evolved into the study of leadership traits, only to be supplanted

later the theories under discussion here (Glynn & DeJordy, 2010). Before discussing leadership,

it is useful to define the term. The question of the correct definition of leadership is a nontrivial

matter. Rost (1993) discovered 221 different definitions and conceptions of leadership. Some of

those definitions were narrow while others offered broader conceptions. Bass (2000; 2008)

argued that the search for a single definition of leadership was pointless. Among multiple

118

definitions and conceptions, the correct definition of leadership depends on the specific aspect of

leadership of interest to the individual (Bass, 2008). This manuscript focuses on three specific

conceptions of leadership: situational, transformational, and TL. The next section begins with

situational leadership.

Situational leadership

Situational leadership theory proposes that effective leadership requires a rational

understanding of the situation and an appropriate response, rather than a charismatic leader with

a large group of dedicated followers (Graeff, 1997; Grint, 2011). Situational leadership in

general and Situational Leadership Theory (SLT) in particular evolved from a task-oriented

versus people-oriented leadership continuum (Bass, 2008; Conger, 2010; Graeff, 1997; Lorsch,

2010). The continuum represented the extent that the leader focuses on the required tasks or

focuses on their relations with their followers. Originally developed by Hershey and Blanchard

(1969; 1979; 1996), SLT described leadership style, and stressed the need to relate the leader’s

style to the maturity level of the followers. Task-oriented leaders define the roles for followers,

give definite instructions, create organizational patterns, and establish formal communication

channels (Bass, 2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969; 1979; 1996; 1980; 1981). In contrast,

relation-oriented leaders practice concern for others, attempt to reduce emotional conflicts, seek

harmonious relations, and regulate equal participation (Bass, 2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969;

1979; 1996; 1980; 1981; Shin, Heath, & Lee, 2011). Various authors have classified SLT as a

behavioral theory (Bass, 2008) or a contingency theory (Yukl, 2011). Both conceptions contain

some validity. SLT focuses on leaders’ behaviors as either task or people focused. This supports

its inclusion as a behavioral approach to leadership, similar to the leadership styles approach

(autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire), the Michigan production-oriented versus employee-

oriented approach, the Ohio State initiation versus consideration dichotomy, and the directive

versus participative approach (Bass, 2008; Glynn & DeJordy, 2010). It also portrays effective

leadership as contingent on follower maturity. This fits with other contingency-based leadership

theories including Fiedler’s contingency theory, path-goal theory, leadership substitutes theory,

and Vroom’s normative contingency model (Glynn & DeJordy, 2010; Bass, 2008; Yukl, 2011).

Both conceptualizations of SLT admit that task-oriented and relation-oriented behaviors are

dependent, rather than mutually exclusive approaches. The effective leader engages in a mix of

task and relation behaviors (Cubero, 2007; Graeff, 1997; Shin et al., 2011; Yukl, 2008; 2011;

Yukl & Mahsud, 2010). The level of maturity (both job and psychological maturity) of

followers determines the correct leadership style and relates to previous education and training

interventions (Bass, 2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). Some scholars criticize SLT specifically

and situational leadership in general.

Criticisms of situational leadership

SLT was a popular conception of leadership; however, as experience with the original

Hersey & Blanchard model accrued, problems with the construct appeared. Nicholls (1985)

described three flaws with SLT dealing with its consistency, continuity, and conformity. Bass

(2008) agreed, noting lack of internal consistency, conceptual contradictions, and ambiguities.

Other scholars suggested additional weaknesses of SLT (Bass, 2008; Glynn & DeJordy, 2010).

Research revealed that no particular leadership style was universally effective and behavioral

theories relied on abstract leadership types that were difficult to identify (Glynn & DeJordy,

2010). A number of recent studies utilized the situational leadership approach. Next, this

manuscript describes two of them.

119

Research articles on situational leadership

Paul and Elder (2008) presented a guide for the analysis of research articles. Paul and

Elder (2008) suggested that the examination of an article explicitly consider the purpose,

question, information, concepts, assumptions, inferences, point of view, and implications in the

study. Arvidsson, Johansson, Ek, and Akselsson (2007), used a situational leadership framework

in the study of air traffic control employees. Arvidsson et al. (2007) set out to investigate how

leadership styles and adaptability differ across various situations, conditions, structures, and

tasks in the air traffic control arena. The authors asked a variety of research questions about the

relationship between leadership adaptability, task-orientation of the leader, leadership style,

working situation, operational conditions, organizational structure, and level of leadership

experience (Arvidsson et al., 2007). The information contained in the article included a

discussion of the literature linking leadership and safety and a relationship between leadership

and reduced stress levels. The article described the SLT model, the study, methods, results, and

discussion. The specific concepts presented included leadership and SLT. The authors’ implicit

assumptions included a relationship between effective leadership and workplace safety as well as

a relationship between leadership effectiveness and stress and between stress and poor workplace

performance. The authors also assumed that differences among coworkers require leaders to

exhibit sensitivity to and the ability to diagnose varying levels of maturity or readiness among

employees (Arvidsson et al, 2007). The point of view of the article is quantitative, positivist, and

objectivist. The authors hypothesize a correlation between independent and dependent variables

and then set out to investigate and confirm that relationship (Creswell, 2009). Arvidsson et al.

(2007) discussed implications of their work. In particular, despite the fact that previous research

indicated that relation-oriented leadership is preferred over task-oriented leadership, task-

orientation is suitable in some situations. Assigning tasks and job roles, specifying procedures,

and clarifying follower expectations result in increased job satisfaction (Arvidsson et al., 2007).

The next section examines another recent study.

Larsson and Vinberg (2010) conducted a study to identify common leadership behaviors

at a small group of successful companies and to organize those behaviors into suitable categories

to discuss theoretical implications of situational aspects of effective leadership. The study

attempted to uncover common leadership behaviors as they related to quality, effectiveness,

environment, and health perceptions. The implicit questions included which leadership

behaviors relate to outcomes, situational aspects, effectiveness, productivity, quality, and job

satisfaction (Larsson & Vinberg, 2010). The information in the article covered situational

leadership theories, theoretical constructs of effectiveness, and a description of four case studies

of effective organizations. The study addressed the concepts of leadership effectiveness, task

orientation, relation orientation, change leadership, and case study methodology. Larsson and

Vinberg (2010) started from the position of endorsing the relationship between leadership and

organizational success. Then they sought to identify the behaviors common to successful

leadership across four subject organizations. Larsson and Vinberg conducted the study from a

qualitative, comparative, positivist point of view (2010). The authors discuss the implications as

well as the need for additional research. Larsson and Vinberg (2010) conclude that successful

leadership includes both universally applicable elements (task-oriented) and contingency

elements (relation and change-oriented). The authors suggest additional research in leadership

and quality, and in leadership and follower health outcomes (Larsson & Vinberg, 2010). The

next section presents the transformational leadership theory.

120

Transformational leadership (TL)

Over the past 30 years, TL has been “the single most studied and debated idea with the

field of leadership” (Diaz-Saenz, 2011, p. 299). Published studies link TL to CEO success (Jung,

Wu, & Chow, 2008), middle manager effectiveness (Singh & Krishnan, 2008), military

leadership (Eid, Johnsen, Bartone, & Nissestad, 2008), cross-cultural leadership (Kirkman, Chen,

Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009), virtual teams (Hambley, O’Neill, & Kline, 2007), personality

(Hautala, 2006), emotional intelligence (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006), and a variety of other topics

(Diaz-Saenz, 2011). Burns (1978) operationalized the theory of TL as one of two leadership

styles represented as a dichotomy: transformational and transactional leadership. While distinct

from the concept of charismatic leadership (see Weber, 1924/1947), charisma is an element of

TL (Bass, 1985; 1990; 2000; 2008; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Conger, 1999; 2011; Conger & Hunt,

1999; Diaz-Saenz, 2011). Burns (1978) defined a transformational leader as “one who raises the

followers’ level of consciousness about the importance and value of desired outcomes and the

methods of reaching those outcomes” (p. 141). The transformational leader convinced his

followers to transcend their self-interest for the sake of the organization, while elevating “the

followers’ level of need on Maslow's (1954) hierarchy from lower-level concerns for safety and

security to higher-level needs for achievement and self-actualization” (Bass, 2008, p. 619).

Based on empirical evidence, Bass (1985) modified the original TL construct. Over time, four

factors or components of TL emerged. These components include idealized influence,

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Researchers

frequently group the first two components together as charisma (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The

transformational leader exhibits each of these four components to varying degrees in order to

bring about desired organizational outcomes through their followers (Bass 1985; 1990; 2000;

Bass & Riggio, 2006). Idealized influence incorporates two separate aspects of the follower

relationship. First, followers attribute the leader with certain qualities that followers wish to

emulate. Second, leaders impress followers through their behaviors. Inspirational motivation

involves behavior to motivate and inspire followers by providing a shared meaning and a

challenge to those followers. Enthusiasm and optimism are key characteristics of inspirational

motivation (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Intellectual stimulation allows leaders to increase their

followers’ efforts at innovation by questioning assumptions, reframing known problems, and

applying new frameworks and perspectives to old and established situations and challenges (Bass

& Riggio, 2006). Intellectual stimulation requires openness on the part of the leader. Openness

without fear of criticism and increased levels of confidence in problem solving situation combine

to increase the self-efficacy of followers. Increased self-efficacy leads to increased effectiveness

(Bandura, 1977). Individualized consideration involves acting as a coach or mentor in order to

assist followers with reaching their full potential. Leaders provide learning opportunities and a

supportive climate (Bass & Riggio, 2006). These four components combine to make leaders

transformational figures. In spite of significant empirical support, a number of criticisms of TL

theory exist.

Criticisms of transformational leadership

Empirical research supports the idea that TL positively influences follower and

organizational performance (Diaz-Saenz, 2011). However, a number of scholars criticize TL

(Beyer, 1999; Hunt, 1999; Yukl, 1999; 2011). Yukl (1999) took TL to task and many of his

criticisms retain their relevance today. He noted that the underlying mechanism of leader

influence at work in TL was unclear and that little empirical work existed examining the effect of

TL on work groups, teams, or organizations. He joined other authors and noted an overlap

121

between the constructs of idealized influence and inspirational motivation (Hunt, 1999; Yukl,

1999). Yukl suggested that the theory lacked sufficient identification of the impact of situational

and context variables on leadership effectiveness (1999; 2011). Despite its critics, an ongoing

and vibrant body of research exists on TL and an analysis of two recent articles follows below.

Recent articles on transformational leadership

Gundersen, Hellesoy, and Raeder (2012) studied TL and leadership effectiveness in

international project teams facing dynamic work environments. As noted previously, Paul and

Elder (2008) presented guidelines for the analysis of research articles. The article presented an

examination of the relationship between TL and work adjustment including the mediating role of

trust. The research questions created included the relationship between TL and team

performance, the mediating role of trust, the moderating role of a dynamic work environment,

the relationship between TL and work adjustment, and the relationship between TL and job

satisfaction. Information contained in the article included brief reviews of TL, team

performance, dynamic work environment, trust, work adjustment, and job satisfaction. The

article also discussed the study sample, measures, statistical procedures, limitations, future

research suggestions, implications, and overall conclusion. The specific concepts presented

included TL, trust, dynamic work environment, team performance, work adjustment, and job

satisfaction. The assumptions of the authors included three explicit premises. The suitability of

TL varies according to context, the need for additional empirical work on the relationship

between TL and team outcomes exists, and no previous empirical studies on work adjustment in

international settings as an outcome of leader behaviors exists (Gundersen et al., 2012). The

authors write from a quantitative, positivist, objectivist viewpoint with a confirmatory purpose.

The authors hypothesized a correlation between independent and dependent variables and then

set out to investigate and confirm that relationship (Creswell, 2009). Gundersen et al. (2012)

argue that their study increases knowledge of the drivers of organizational effectiveness.

Specifically, TL behaviors affect performance on international assignments in a variety of

complex projects by contributing to work adjustment and positive outcomes. These implications

apply to high-stakes organizational outcomes including selection of organizational leaders.

Another TL study follows below.

Hamstra, Yperen, Wisse, and Sassenberg (2011) studied transformational (and

transactional) leadership style in relation to followers’ preferred regulatory style, workforce

stability, and organizational effectiveness. The authors intended to address a gap in the

leadership literature by addressing regulatory fit in the context of turnover intentions, while

integrating both transformational and transactional leadership and examining both promotion and

prevention focused regulatory strategies (Hamstra et al., 2011). The research addressed the

relationship between TL and turnover intentions, given a promotion-focused regulatory strategy,

given a prevention-focused regulatory strategy; and the relationship between transactional

leadership and turnover intentions given a promotion-focused regulatory strategy, and given a

prevention-focused regulatory strategy. Information contained in the article included a brief

discussion of TL, transactional leadership, workforce turnover intentions, regulatory strategy,

participants and procedures, measures used, results, and a general discussion of the research

findings. The specific concepts enumerated above include transactional and TL style, and

followers’ regulatory focus. The authors assumed that leadership influences followers turnover

intentions, that a match between followers self-regulatory strategy influences organizational

outcomes, and that leadership style preferences may fit with regulatory style preferences. The

authors worked from a positivist, objectivist, and confirmatory point of view. The authors

122

hypothesized a correlation between independent and dependent variables and then set out to

investigate and confirm that relationship (Creswell, 2009). Hamstra et al. (2011) discussed

several implications of the study including the idea that tailoring specific leadership behaviors or

styles to followers prefer self-regulatory orientation may improve employee retention,

organizational stability, and the engagement of followers. The authors recommended further

research on the relationship between leadership style, turnover intention, and follower

commitment. The authors also suggested additional research on preferred self-regulatory

orientation and other organizational outcomes variables. The next section of the manuscript

explores transactional leadership theory.

Transactional leadership

Transactional leadership focuses on the exchanges that occur between leaders and

followers (Bass 1985; 1990; 2000; 2008; Burns, 1978). These exchanges allow leaders to

accomplish their performance objectives, complete required tasks, maintain the current

organizational situation, motivate followers through contractual agreement, direct behavior of

followers toward achievement of established goals, emphasize extrinsic rewards, avoid

unnecessary risks, and focus on improve organizational efficiency. In turn, transactional

leadership allows followers to fulfill their own self-interest, minimize workplace anxiety, and

concentrate on clear organizational objectives such as increased quality, customer service,

reduced costs, and increased production (Sadeghi & Pihie, 2012). Burns (1978) operationalized

the concepts of both transformational and transactional leadership as distinct leadership styles.

Transactional leadership theory described by Burns (1978) posited the relationship between

leaders and followers as a series of exchanges of gratification designed to maximize

organizational and individual gains. Transactional leadership evolved for the marketplace of

fast, simple transactions among multiple leaders and followers, each moving from transaction to

transaction in search of gratification. The marketplace demands reciprocity, flexibility,

adaptability, and real-time cost-benefit analysis (Burns, 1978). Empirical evidence supports the

relationship between transactional leadership and effectiveness in some settings (Bass, 1985;

1999; 2000; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Hater & Bass, 1988;

Zhu, Sosik, Riggio, & Yang, 2012). Today, researchers study transactional leadership within the

continuum of the full range of leadership model (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Some researchers

criticize transactional leadership.

Criticisms of transactional leadership

Burns (1978) argued that transactional leadership practices lead followers to short-term

relationships of exchange with the leader. These relationships tend toward shallow, temporary

exchanges of gratification and often create resentments between the participants. Additionally, a

number of scholars criticize transactional leadership theory because it utilizes a one-size-fits-all

universal approach to leadership theory construction that disregards situational and contextual

factors related organizational challenges (Beyer, 1999; Yukl, 1999; 2011; Yukl & Mahsud,

2010). Empirical support for transactional leadership typically includes both transactional and

transformational behaviors (Gundersen et al., 2012; Liu, Liu, & Zeng, 2011). Next, this

manuscript reviews two recent articles featuring transactional leadership theory.

123

Recent articles on transactional leadership

Liu et al. (2011) looked at the relationship between transactional leadership and team

innovativeness. The authors focused on the potential moderating role of emotional labor and

examined a mediating role for team efficacy. The authors intended to contribute to the

leadership field by closing an identified gap in the literature with the introduction of emotional

labor and team efficacy as important factors in the existing relationship between transactional

leadership and team innovativeness. The authors predicted a significant negative relationship

between transactional leadership and team innovativeness. The article included an overview

discussion of teams, innovativeness, transactional leadership, emotional labor, and team efficacy.

The authors assumed that transactional leadership could foster team innovativeness in some

settings. The authors also assumed that emotional labor was a moderating factor in that

relationship. Liu et al. (2011) conducted the study from the quantitative, positivist, objectivist,

and confirmatory point of view. The authors hypothesized a correlation between independent

and dependent variables and then set out to investigate and confirm that relationship (Creswell,

2009). Liu et al. (2011) discussed several implications of their findings. Emotional labor acts as

a boundary condition on the relationship between transactional leadership and team

innovativeness. This knowledge helps deepen the understanding of the context in which

transactional leadership leads to organizational effectiveness. Liu et al. (2011) recommended

additional research on transactional leadership and other positive organizational outcomes, and

additional research on other possible boundary conditions. The next section addresses another

study on transactional leadership.

Groves and LaRocca (2011) studied both transactional and TL in the context of ethical

behavior. In contrast to the full range of leadership model view of transactional leadership as

part of a continuum of behaviors, Groves and LaRocca see transactional leadership and TL as

distinct constructs underpinned by separate ethical foundations. Specifically, transactional

leadership flows from “teleological ethical values (utilitarianism)” and TL flows from

“deontological ethical values (altruism, universal rights, Kantian principle, etc.)” (Groves &

LaRocca, 2011, p. 511). While an in-depth discussion of ethics is outside the scope of this

manuscript, it is noteworthy that other authors (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Singh & Krishnan,

2008) also discussed the relationship between ethics and transactional leadership. The concepts

presented by Groves and LaRocca (2011) include corporate social responsibility, ethics, TL,

transactional leadership, and managerial decision-making. The authors examined ethics in

relation to leadership style and its impact on follower values and corporate social responsibility.

The point of view presented by the authors is quantitative, positivist, objective, and confirmatory

as evidenced by a research design that hypothesizes a correlation between independent and

dependent variables and then set out to investigate and confirm that relationship (Creswell,

2009). Liu et al. (2011) confirmed empirical support for their view. Author identified

limitations included: results oriented toward leaders description of what they would do rather

than actual behavior, omission of measures designed to identify social desirability, and inability

to generalize findings to the larger population. Additional limitations mentioned included

potential common source and common method bias, lack of longitudinal data, follower response

bias, and an inability to separate personal ethics from preferred leadership style (Liu et al., 2011).

The authors suggested additional research to address these limitations. Next, this manuscript

summarizes the key concepts in situational, transformational, and transactional leadership.

124

Situational, Transformational, and Transactional Leadership

This manuscript analyzes three seminal leadership theories: situational leadership, TL,

and transactional leadership. Situational leadership emphasized leadership behaviors along a

continuum between task-orientation in relation-orientation. Situational leadership also

emphasized the level of maturity, or readiness of the followers as a contingency or context that

leaders need to account for in order to establish the correct fit between the leader and follower

(Bass, 2008). In TL, leaders achieve results by employing idealized influence, inspirational

motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 2000; 2008; Bass &

Riggio, 2006). The transformational leader exhibits each of these four components to varying

degrees in order to bring about desired organizational outcomes through their followers (Bass &

Riggio, 2006). Transformational leaders share a vision, inspire followers, mentor, coach, respect

individuals, foster creativity, and act with integrity (Bass, 1990; 1999; 2008; Bass & Riggio,

2006).

Transactional leadership involves exchanges between leaders and followers designed to

provide benefits to both. Leaders influence followers through contingent rewards and negative

feedback or corrective coaching. Despite originating as distinct constructs, transactional and TL

exist as parts of another leadership model, the full range of leadership model (Bass & Riggio,

2006). One notable difference between these three leadership theories involves the subject of

charisma (Conger, 1999; 2011; Conger & Hunt, 1999; Hunt, 1999; Shamir & Howell, 1999).

Many scholars combine idealized influence and inspirational motivation under the

heading charismatic-inspirational leadership or simply charismatic leadership (Bass, 2008; Bass

& Riggio, 2006; Hunt, 1999; Shamir & Howell, 1999). The concept of charisma in entered the

social sciences from religion through the work of Max Weber (1924/1947). In contrast to TL,

both situational and transactional leadership theories ignore the role of individual differences

between leaders (Bass, 2008). Charisma is a key example of one such individual difference.

Summary of key differences and similarities

As described above, similarities exist between task-oriented leadership and transactional

leadership (Bass, 1985; 1990; 1999; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Burns, 1978). Both focus on the

exchange between leaders and followers and both emphasize work products or outcomes.

Relation-oriented leadership compares to TL (Bass 1985; 1990; 1999; Burns 1978; Conger,

2011), authentic leadership (Avolio, 2010; Bass, 2008; Caza & Jackson, 2011), and servant

leadership (Bass, 2008). Relation-oriented leadership is people focused, inspirational,

persuasive, and intellectually stimulating (Bass, 2008). Both situational leadership theory and

transactional leadership focus on leadership behaviors to the exclusion of leadership traits or

individual differences, while TL looks at leadership behaviors and individual differences.

Transactional and TL theories involve universal approaches to leadership. TL applies to a wide

range of situations and contexts and evidence suggests TL fits a variety of diverse cultural

contexts (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, & Dorfman, 1999; Leong, 2011;

Rowold & Rohmann, 2009; Tsai, Chen, & Cheng, 2009; Zhu et al., 2012). In contrast,

situational leadership theories and contingent leadership approaches advocate for the right

leadership style and behaviors for the context and situation faced by the organization (Bass,

2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969; 1979; 1996; Yukl, 1999, 2008; 2011). Transformational and

transactional leadership theories, and the corresponding full range of leadership theory, continue

to add to an impressive 30-year history of empirical support (Diaz-Saenz, 2011; Gundersen et al.,

2012; Hamstra et al., 2011; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Leong, 2011; Reichard, Riggio, Guerin,

Oliver, Gottfried, & Gottfried, 2009; Yukl; 2011). However, 30 years of history does not

125

guarantee that transformational and transactional leadership adequately address the challenges

facing the modern field of leadership.

Contemporary Leadership Challenges and the Future of Leadership Development

A vital challenge to the academic leadership field involves the need to develop leaders

and leadership. Day (2011) argued that over time, some leaders developed “the erroneous belief

that leadership develops mainly in leadership development programs” (p. 37). Historically,

leadership development targeted specific skills and competencies, while focusing on diffusion of

best practices. For example, leadership development programs target self-management

strategies, social competencies, and work facilitation (Day, 2009). Day (2011) suggested a

transition in leadership development beyond the best practices orientation. Day argued for a

more scientific approach to developing leaders and leadership. Modern leadership requires a

new focus on developing leadership expertise (Day, 2009), new perspectives on the role of leader

identity (Day & Harrison, 2007), and the development of adaptive leadership capacity (DeRue &

Wellman, 2009). Each of the three leadership theories discussed in this manuscript approaches

the subject of leadership development differently.

Situational leadership theory advocates matching the leader to the situation if possible or

matching the leadership orientation (task versus relation) to the follower maturity (Hersey &

Blanchard, 1969; 1979; 1996). Leadership development efforts aimed at improving

organizational effectiveness should use instruments designed to gauge the level of task-

orientation and relation-orientation of the leader in order to establish a fit with the current level

of follower maturity. Existing leaders should receive skills and competency training aimed at

developing their task-oriented or relational-oriented skill deficits. Previous empirical research

indicated that level of follower maturity related to previous education and training interventions

(Bass, 2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969; 1979; 1996).

Bass & Riggio (2006) suggested that TL development could not focus on specific, narrow

skills. Bass (2008) argued for TL as a reflection of the “whole integrated person and their deeply

held values and self-concepts” (p. 1106). Development in TL requires a broadly established

educational process. Burns (1978) agreed, advocating for the joint involvement of facilitators

and students in an effort to reach "higher stages of moral reasoning" and higher levels of

individual judgment (Burns, 1978, p. 449). Based on these recommendations for a broad

educational process, targeting the leader’s values and self-concepts, aimed at higher stages of

moral reasoning, it is reasonable to doubt whether TL development is possible. This represents

another key difference between TL and situational leadership.

The extant leadership literature provides little guidance on transactional leadership

development. This may stem from the fact that most leaders do not need development to behave

transactionally with their followers. Transactional leadership is traditional leadership (Burns,

1978). As Weber (1924/1947) indicated, a system of operation and coordination is called

“traditional” if it is part of an existing system of control, and if the leader enjoys authority based

on status and on the existence of personal loyalty created through a process of education (p. 341).

This process of education is transactional leadership development. Real-world examples,

available practice, and on-the-job training opportunities abound for the leader attempting to

develop their transactional leadership behaviors. This manuscript closes with a brief description

of the future of leadership.

Bass (2008) predicted the continued importance of both personal traits and situations to

leadership. Bass argued that large, purely transactional organizations would give way to

transformational ones as modern leaders become more innovative, responsive, flexible, and

126

adaptive (Bass, 2008). The study of leadership marches on toward follower-centered approaches

(Bligh, 2011), hybrid configurations (Gronn, 2011), complexity theory (Uhl-Bien & Marion,

2011), and a variety of other arenas. The increase in theoretical pluralism, evident since the 90s,

continues as the academic field of leadership continues its search for the truth (Bryman,

Collinson, Grint, Jackson, & Uhl-Bien, 2011). Leadership scholars must continue to engage in

thorough and thoughtful research into the connections between development and efficacy,

organizations and outcomes, and between leaders and followers. That is both the future

challenge and the historical past of leadership.

References

Arvidsson, M., Johansson, C. R., Ek, Å., & Akselsson, R. (2007). Situational leadership in air

traffic control. Journal of Air Transportation, 12(1), 67-86. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.ed

u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=25644644&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Avolio, B. J. (2010). Pursuing authentic leadership development. In N. Nohria, & R. Khurana

(Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice (pp. 739-765). Boston, MA: Harvard

Business Press.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40.

doi:10.1016/0090-2616(85)90028-2

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the

vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.ed

u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9607211357&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.

European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32.

doi:10.1080/135943299398410

Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 7(3), 18-40. doi:10.1177/107179190000700302

Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial

applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by

assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,

88(2), 207-218. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

Psychology Press.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational

leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217. doi:10.1016/S1048-

9843(99)00016-8

Beyer, J. M. (1999). Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations. The Leadership

Quarterly, 10(2), 307-330. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00019-3

Bligh, M. C. (2011). Followership and follower-centered approaches. In A. Bryman, D.

Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership

(pp. 425-436). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Grint, K., Jackson, B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE

handbook of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

127

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Caza, A., & Jackson, B. (2011). Authentic leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B.

Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 352-364).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider's

perspective on these developing streams of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2),

145-179. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00012-0

Conger, J. A. (2011). Charismatic leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson

& M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 86-102). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Conger, J. A., & Hunt, J. G. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership: Taking stock

of the present and future (part i). The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 121-127. doi:

10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00017-X

Creswell, J. H. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Cubero, C. G. (2007). Situational leadership and persons with disabilities. Work, 29(4), 351-356.

Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.ed

u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=27621294&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Day, D. V. (2009). Executive selection is a process not a decision. Industrial & Organizational

Psychology, 2(2), 159-162. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01126.x

Day, D. V. (2011). Leadership development. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson &

M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 37-50). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership

development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 360-373.

doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.007

Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W.

(1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories:

Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The

Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219-256. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00018-1

DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of

developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 94(4), 859-875. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.ed

u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=42838422&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Diaz-Saenz, H. R. (2011). Transformational leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B.

Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 299-310).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Bartone, P. T., & Nissestad, O. A. (2008). Growing transformational

leaders: Exploring the role of personality hardiness. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 29(1), 4-23. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1108/01437730810845270

Glynn, M. A., & DeJordy, R. (2010). Leadership through an organizational behavior lens: A look

at the last half-century of research. In N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of

leadership and practice (pp. 119-158). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

128

Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review. The

Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153-170. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90014-X

Grint, K. (2011). A history of leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson & M.

Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 3-14). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Gronn, P. (2011). Hybrid configurations of leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B.

Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 437-454).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Groves, K. S., & LaRocca, M. A. (2011). An empirical study of leader ethical values,

transformational and transactional leadership, and follower attitudes toward corporate

social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(4), 511-528. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1007/s10551-011-0877-y

Gundersen, G., Hellesoy, B. T., & Raeder, S. (2012). Leading international project teams: The

effectiveness of transformational leadership in dynamic work environments. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 46-57. doi:10.1177/1548051811429573

Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. B. (2007). Virtual team leadership: The effects of

leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 1-20.

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.004

Hamstra, M. R. W., Van Yperen, N. W., Wisse, B., & Sassenberg, K. (2011). Transformational-

transactional leadership styles and followers’ regulatory focus: Fit reduces followers’

turnover intentions. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10(4), 182-186. doi:10.1027/1866-

5888/a000043

Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superior's evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695-

702. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.ed

u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5111775&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Hautala, T.M. (2006). The relationship between personality and transformational leadership.

Journal of Management Development, 25(8), 777-794. doi:10.1108/02621710610684259

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development

Journal, 23(5), 26. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.ed

u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7465530&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1979). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development

Journal, 33(6), 94. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.ed

u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9067469&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1980). The management of change. Training & Development

Journal, 34(6), 80. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.ed

u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9072349&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1981). So you want to know your leadership style? Training &

Development Journal, 35(6), 34. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.ed

u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7471134&site=ehost-live&scope=site

129

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1996). Great ideas revisited: Revisiting the life-cycle theory of

leadership. Training & Development Journal, 50(1), 42.

Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership's transformation of the field: An

historical essay. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129-144. doi:10.1016/S1048-

9843(99)00015-6

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-

analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

Jung, D., Wu, A., & Chow, C. W. (2008). Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects

of CEOs' transformational leadership on firm innovation. The Leadership Quarterly,

19(5), 582-594. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.007

Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Chen, Z., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power

distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level,

cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 744-764.

doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669971

Larsson, J., & Vinberg, S. (2010). Leadership behaviour in successful organisations: Universal or

situation-dependent? Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(3), 317-334.

doi:10.1080/14783360903561779

Leong, L. Y. C. (2011). Is transformational leadership universal? A meta-analytical investigation

of multifactor leadership questionnaire means across cultures. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 18(2), 164-174. doi:10.1177/1548051810385003

Liu, J., Liu, X., & Zeng, X. (2011). Does transactional leadership count for team innovativeness?

Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 282-298.

doi:10.1108/09534811111132695

Lorsch, J. W. (2010). A contingency theory of leadership. In N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.),

Handbook of leadership theory and practice (pp. 411-432). Boston, MA: Harvard

Business Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper.

Nicholls, J. R. (1985). A new approach to situational leadership. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 6(4), 2.

Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2008). The miniature guide to critical thinking. ( No. 520m).

www.criticalthinking.org: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. Retrieved from

http://courseroom2.capella.edu/webct/RelativeResourceManager/Template/OM8004/Cour

se_Files/cf_Miniature_Guide_to_Critical_Thinking-Concepts_and_Tools.pdf

Reichard, R. J., Riggio, R. E., Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E.

(2011). A longitudinal analysis of relationships between adolescent personality and

intelligence with adult leader emergence and transformational leadership. The Leadership

Quarterly, 22(3), 471-481. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.005

Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership development in the new millennium. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 1(1), 91-110. doi:10.1177/107179199300100109

Rowold, J., & Rohmann, A. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership styles,

followers' positive and negative emotions, and performance in German nonprofit

orchestras. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20(1), 41-59. doi:10.1002/nml.240

Sadeghi, A., & Pihie, Z. A. L. (2012). Transformational leadership and its predictive effects on

leadership effectiveness. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7), 186-

197.

130

Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence

and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 257-283.

doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00014-4

Shin, J., Heath, R. L., & Lee, J. (2011). A contingency explanation of public relations

practitioner leadership styles: Situation and culture. Journal of Public Relations Research,

23(2), 167-190. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2010.505121

Singh, N., & Krishnan, V. R. (2008). Self-sacrifice and transformational leadership: Mediating

role of altruism. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(3), 261-274.

Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1108/01437730810861317

Tsai, W., Chen, H., & Cheng, J. (2009). Employee positive moods as a mediator linking

transformational leadership and employee work outcomes. International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 20(1), 206-219. doi:10.1080/09585190802528714

Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2011). Complexity leadership theory. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson,

K. Grint, B. Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 468-

482). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (T. Parsons Trans.). New

York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published in 1924)

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic

leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305. doi:10.1016/S1048-

9843(99)00013-2

Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly,

19(6), 708-722.

Yukl, G. (2011). Contingency theories of effective leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K.

Grint, B. Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 286-

298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential. Consulting

Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 81-93. doi:10.1037/a0019835

Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 6-

16. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6

Zhu, W., Sosik, J.J., Riggio, R.E. & Yang, B. (2012). Relationships between transformational

and active transactional leadership and followers' organizational identification: The role of

psychological empowerment. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 13(3), 186.

Copyright of Journal of Business Studies Quarterly is the property of Journal of Business Studies Quarterly and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.