Transformational Leadership.Criticisms And Arguments Against Transformational Leadership - Essay Example

? Transformational Leadership First School Affiliation In this paper, the main of discussion will be on transformational leadership. What I am going to cover in depth is the criticisms and arguments that are against transformational leadership. I will also help you as the reader understand what is referred to as the transformational leadership theory. I will go ahead and take my stand on the matter and support my stand based on several writers and what they have written about transformational leadership. This is a paper that will extensively be a research on the topic of criticism of transformational leadership. By the time you are finished reading this paper you will have shaped your opinion on the matter of transformational leadership. Theory of Transformational leadership Cox (2001) stated that there are two primary groups of leadership. He stated them as transformational and transactional. However, Downton (1973, as cited in Barnett et al. 2001) was the first who came up with the difference between transformational and transactional leadership but the concept garnered little attention until the articles on political leaders by James McGregor Burns’ (1978) came to be published. According to Burns he made the distinction between transformational leaders as being outstanding/extraordinary leaders who engage with supporters, with their focus on higher order intrinsic needs, and brought up awareness about the value of specific results and new ways in which those results might be obtained and transactional leaders as being ordinary leaders who interchanged tangible/concrete benefits for the loyalty and work of supporters (Barnett et al. 2001; Cox 2001; Gellis 2001; Griffin 2003; Assess & Piccolo 2004). The theory of transformational leadership was further developed by Bernard Bass by questioning Burns’ perception of transformational and transactional leadership as opposites on a procession. Instead he suggested that they are individual ideas and that good leaders illustrate the features of both (Judge & Piccolo 2004, p. 755). Hitler is a good example given of a transactional leader while the best example of a transformational leader is Gandhi. The interest in transformational leadership is as a result of two tendencies (Simic 1998, p. 50). First, important international changes in the economy from the early 1970s meant that a lot of large companies in the west, such as AT&T and General Motors had to put into consideration extreme changes in their methods of conducting business. Some of the factors were the rapid changes in technology, an increase in the circulation of products from recently industrialized nations, increased competitiveness among the competitors, pricing strategy in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) being volatile, and changing market structures led to a strong, volatile and competitive atmosphere in which important changes in the organization were crucial. Downsizing and adopting of new types of business agreement were the most common changes carried out. Therefore these changes took their toll on employee empowerment and satisfaction. This broke the old social agreement that had long term employment and in exchange get the employee's loyalty (Griffin 2003, p. 1). Secondly, in the 1970s, we had the contingency theory on leadership. The theory on leadership was established in research of behaviors, character, and circumstances and did not account for several untypical features in leaders (Simic 1998, p. 50). These are the fact tendencies that led to the realization of the theory of transformation. Odom and Green (2003), based on research and the analysis of a number of legal cases, claim that when the concept of transformational leadership is used in ethical dilemmas that managers face there is less litigation and better moral results than if the transactional approach to values that is common was used. Within academic surroundings, as a result of transformational leadership, instructors are more likely to work together and are perceived to be more likely to have positive behavior to school enhancement and to new types of academic behavior (Eric 1992). This paper assesses the various criticisms made to the theory of transformational leadership. This essay has concluded that the following, are among the most observable criticisms made. There is suspicion based on the credibility of the measurement requirements that underpin the MLQ (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire) and the resulting negative effects this has with regards to the how the transformational leadership theory is dependent on essentially defective presentation of how leadership signs are calculated. The transformational leadership theory is also accused of being an elitist concept. Another criticism that will be highlighted in this paper is that there are flaws in the charismatic argument. The other factor that is of concern is that the measurement criteria is viewed to be ambiguous. Criticisms and arguments against Transformational Leadership Critics of transformational and transactional leadership rely on the ambiguity in trying to differentiate the two. Organizational development professionals and libertarians have been raising the question on the moral aspect of transformational leadership (Griffin 2003). A key point as to why it is transformational leadership is criticized is the aspect that there is potential of abuse of power in this structure of leadership (Hall et al. 2002). The leaders in the transformational structure of leadership motivate and encourage their supporters by appealing to highly effective feelings with total disregard to the effects it has on the supporters and do not actually attend to positive ethical principles. Transformational leaders can apply a very highly effective impact over supporters, who offer them respect and trust (Stone et al. 2003, p. 4). A number of leaders may have narcissistic propensities that thrive on manipulation and power. Also, several supporters may have reliant characters and create highly effective and regrettable ties with their leaders (Stone et al. 2003, p. 4). As Bass (1997) further notices, transformational leadership does not have the constraints of countervailing influences, power and interests, which might help to prevent oppression and dictatorship of those who are minority by the majority. It is self-evident that in the lack of ethical rectitude then transformational leadership has a probability of being used for undesirable social ends. Yukl (1989, p. 226) explains this and refers to it as the “dark side of charisma” and then goes ahead to observe (p. 227) that for every example of a beneficial transformational leader that demonstrates charming features, for example Gandhi, there is an similarly adverse example, for example Charles Manson. The leader of the large Jonestown suicide, Rev Jim Jackson, is one example of a transformational leader who is considered to be in the ‘dark side’ (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 2004). These criticisms, about the values of transformational leadership, are resolved by the discussion that for one to be transformational there has to be a moral foundation in leadership (Griffin 2003). Thus: “To bring about change, genuine transformational leadership encourages the modal principles of loyalty, commitment, and equity, as well as the end principles of human rights, equal privileges, and Justice” (Griffin 2003, p. 8). In various arguments, the greatest criticism against the transformational leadership theory is that the device that supports the whole philosophical structure of the concept itself, the MLQ, is perceived to be conceptually defective/flawed. Its critics claim that the four components that consist of transformational leadership concept, that is, inspirational motivation, idealized influence, motivational inspiration, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation which get referred to as the Four I's, are not completely unique to accomplish a significant distinction of transformational leadership's theoretical justifications from those of other leadership concepts (Northouse 2007). There has been criticism made of the recognized uncertain use of the idea of 'influence' in a bid to justify the explanatory power of the transformational leadership theory. In view to this perspective, transformational leadership concept idea with regards to factors concerned with influence would be more substantial if the real procedures themselves were better recognized within transformational leadership empirical analysis. Yukl criticizes the deficiency of quantitative and qualitative analysis with regards to arousal of feelings, improved self-efficacy or positive outlook, adjustment of values about reward contingencies and improved process commitment (Yukl p. 287). There is expansion of this criticism from Bryman by revealing that it is important for there to be a confirmed connection between charismatic authorities and its impact on supporters to the level that the followers show behaviors that correspond to the leader's overall goals. He refers to this as routinization of charisma and declares that if systems for routinizing the leader's charisma are not properly understood, this form of leadership will be an ephemeral phenomenon (Bryman p. 754).What they all want to say is that the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire to underpin the theory of transformational leadership are flawed. Hoyt and Blascovich seeks to address the issue of these criticisms, they embarked on an extensive research trying to prove whether or not the transformational leadership design is directly accountable for increasing the combined self-efficacy of the team in the bid of increasing performance requirements would seem to be required before one could unconditionally claim that transformational leadership is accountable for this effect (Hoyt and Blascovich 2003). They performed this research four years after Yukl's review and extensively measures the very factors that Yukl considered as being inadequately examined to provide credibility to transformational leadership concept. Using the regression analysis technique the writers have vividly confirmed how trust is an important element in the connection between supporters’ behavior and productivity. From the research, what they got after using sample group research was that trust was is considered as being the key element which drove supporters to generate more qualitative work which was inextricably limited with group-cohesiveness and job-satisfaction that comes about by responding to the leader's influence (ibid: 702-4). The conclusions based on this study have challenged Yukl’s criticisms. There is a decry from several other critics on what they understand to be the natural measurement-based faults that are found in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire device itself. For example, Tejeda et al established the perspective that the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was missing a completely extensive strategy which provided a research program that assured reliability, replicability, and consistency, insofar as such requirements is probable with an area which is dependent upon qualitative-based study. They refer to regular circumstances of apparently unclear research that betray wide spread faults within transformational leadership's ideological structure vis-a-vis the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Particularly, they make reference to unsolved psychometric problems with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, particularly the first-order aspect structure (Tejeda et al: 36). Having performed an innovative factor-based research into the psychometric qualities into the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire device, the outcomes of which made the writers to make conclusion that their results are not in support of the full-item Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire with reasons that the internal legitimacy of the program would seem to have been compromised. Transformational leadership is also criticized for being elitist and for putting an unbalanced focus on the factor of heroism of the leader that is at the expense of the follower's concerns (Northouse: 193). These criticism imply the idea that the leaders of transformational leadership are someway gifted with unique characteristics which supporters have no way of having access to them; subsequently supporters’ destinies are inevitably linked with the leader’s desires. Espousers of transformational leadership concept are against such allegations and counter them by pointing out that, besides from being an elitist division of leadership concept, the FRL and Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire are an effort to magnify the discussion beyond the charming great man type situation by putting an essential focus on supporter behavior. Bass claims, in any case, the charismatic is only an attribute of what comprises authentic transformational leadership (Northouse: 179-80). Conclusion Transformational leadership, in consideration with the globalized world, is best suited form of leadership. In conclusion, keep in mind that power/leadership, despite it being an extremely well-known topic in its own right, it is still a tricky business to come up with a good definition (Mintzberg: 213). Therefore it should not come as a surprise if any one concept of leadership comes out to declare its ascendancy from the rest, only for others to undermined and criticized by others with considerably opposite opinions. This essay has been reviewing the various criticisms and arguments against transformational leadership and I have been able to quote various writers who have refuted the theory of transformational leadership. Clearly, the transformational leadership concept by its very characteristics is prone to criticisms because the concepts they claim can be put to challenge by any mind that is skeptical and desires to choose gaps in a theoretical build which is incapable to provide a water-tight defense just like concepts commonly found in the natural sciences. It is self-evident that challenging ideas such as impact and charm traverse many circumstances where the number of factors involved are of a broad scope to evaluate any measure of accuracy that would fulfill query of validity. Besides there being all these forms of criticism, there has been no one who has identified a superior theory than the transformational leadership. Hence, my view is that it is a good leadership theory to implement in leadership. There is no need of criticizing a theory and revoke it just because you have identified a loophole in the system used in its measure. This criticism just gives hint of jealousy from those against it. References Barnett, K, McCormick, J, & Conners, R, 2001, Transformational leadership in schools – panacea, placebo or problem? Journal of Educational Administration, 39(1), pp. 24-46. Bass, B.M, & Riggio, R.E, 2006, Transformational Leadership (2nd edition), LEA Publishing. Bryman, A, 2004, Qualitative research on leadership: a critical but appreciative review, Leadership Quarterly, 15 (6), 729-769. Burns, J, 1978, Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Cox, P.L, 2001, Transformational leadership: a success story at Cornell University. Proceedings of the ATEM/aappa 2001 conference. Retrieved October 19, 2013, from http://www.anu.edu.au/facilities/atem-aappaa/full_papers/Coxkeynote.html Eric, G, 1992, Transformational leadership. ERIC Digest, Number 72. Retrieved October 19, 2013, from http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed347636.html Hall, J, Johnson, S., Wysocki, A, & Kepner, K, 2002, Transformational leadership: the transformation of managers and associates. Retrieved October 19, 2013, from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu Hoyt, C, .L, & Blascovich, J, 2003, Transformational and Transactional Leadership in Virtual and Physical Environments, Small Group Research, 34 (6), 678-715 [Accessed: 19 October 2013]. 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, pp. 755-768. Mintzberg, H, 2004, Managers not MBAs: a hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development, FT: Prentice Hall. Northouse, P.G, 2007, Leadership: theory and practice (4th edition), Sage Publications. Odom, L, & Green, M.T, 2003, Law and the ethics of transformational leadership, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24(1/2), pp. 62-69. Simic, I, 1998, Transformational leadership - the key to successful management of transformational organizational changes, Facta Universitas, 1(6), pp. 49-55. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 2004, Transformational Leadership, Retrieved October 19, 2013from http://www.sedl.org/change/leadership/history.html Tejeda, M.J, Scadura, T.A, & Pillai, R, 2001, The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations, Leadership Quarterly, 12 (1), 31-52 [Accessed: 19 October 2013] Yukl, G.A, 1999, An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305 [Electronic copy received from Mr. Paul Stoneman, University of Greenwich: 19 October 2013]. Read More