Leadership Models and the Features of Transformational Leadership - Assignment Example

 Leadership Models (Add Student’s Name) (Add Tutor’s Name) (Add Date) Leadership Models Introduction There are various leadership models propounded by various theorists. A close analysis of most of these theories makes the stunning revelation that they possess various common concepts. This work intends to look into the conceptual overlap among transformational leadership, servant leadership, and authentic leadership. The first part of the work looks into the basic concepts underlying each of these models, and then, a comparison is made by selecting the common features from them. The Features of Transformational Leadership The term transforming leadership was first introduced by Burns (1978, p. 87). Thereafter, the concept was further developed and popularized by Bass (1985). Bass (1990) claimed that transformational leadership is especially helpful in volatile workplaces as it helps promote among employees and employers, which helps them to concentrate on the welfare of the firm instead of their own individual gains. Evidently, one can trace the roots of this transformational leadership into the works of Weber (1947) and Downton (1973). In his work, Bass (1990) points out that in the transforming leadership, the leader and the followers are open to each other, and engage in such activities and communication, which help promote the enthusiasm and morality of the other. According to Bass (1985), the transformational leadership is considerably different from the traditional concepts of leader-follower interaction. To illustrate, a transformational leader possesses various strong and deep-rooted values which are not easily altered. The leader’s actions arise out of these values, and are strong enough to unite the followers. According to Avolio, Waldman & Yammarino. (1991), a transformational leader is able to unite and motivate the followers by exhibiting four important features; individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and charisma. Humphreys (2005) points out that transformational leaders give individual consideration by paying close attention to the personal differences among the members. Thus, often, the leaders become the mentors of their followers. In addition, they do not hesitate to give coaching and advising to their followers, thus ensuring that their employees are not facing such problems which are capable of obstructing their performance. Thus, it becomes evident that the first strategy used by transformational leaders to improve the performance of their followers is identifying and removing the hurdles in the performance of each follower through close observation and accurate diagnosis. The second important characteristic of transformational leadership, according to people like Bass (1990), is intellectual stimulation. They achieve this by encouraging their followers to change their colored perceptions about various issues. Also, the transformational leaders are capable to present such logical reasons which will motivate the followers to change their attitudes and values. In the same line, Avolio, Waldman & Einstein (1988) points out that a transformational leader can ensure intellectual stimulation of the followers by encouraging them to look at old problems with a new insight. The third important feature as put forward by Avolio, Waldman & Yammarino (1991) is that transformational leaders always try to motivate their followers to make great achievements. In order to implement this successfully, the leader should be able to communicate high expectations in an effective way, use symbols to keep the followers focused, and present such important goals in a seemingly achievable way. Moreover, the leaders may use individual consideration as an effective tool to keep followers motivated and also to increase the confidence and self-worth of followers. As Howell and Avolio (2002) point out, charismatic leaders are capable of exerting more influence on their followers than other leaders are (cited in Carss, 2010). So, the transformational leaders always try to achieve charisma among their followers. It is pointed out that people like to trust and show commitment to leaders who are charismatic. Important Tenets of Servant Leadership In the opinion of Humphreys (2005), servant leadership too has its origin from the school of charismatic leadership. In fact, the concept of servant leadership was put forward by Greenleaf (1977, p. 14) though he could not operationally define the same. The concept of servant leadership, in the words of Greenleaf (1977) is about ‘caring for persons, the more able and the less able serving each other’. According to him, in order to build a better society, it is necessary to raise the capacity to serve and the performance as a servant (p. 14). Though in vague terms, Greenleaf (1977) writes about his servant leadership concept. According to him, the servant leadership should arise from the natural feeling that ones duty is to serve, which makes one lead as a natural consequence (p. 12). In this leading, the leaders takes care to see that the priority needs of the followers are being served. In fact, the concept of servant leadership is defined in better terms by Smith Montagno & Kuzmenko (2004); according to them, servant leadership exhibits behavior and actions that honor the individual self-esteem and self-worth of followers and increase the desire to become servant leaders as well. Similarly, Laub (1999) defines servant leadership as the kind of leadership in which the leader places the interests of the followers above his own self-interests. In even clearer terms, Birkenmeier, Carson & Carson (2003) point out that servant leaders are such people who fulfil the physical, spiritual, and emotional needs of the followers. In the opinion of Daft (1999), there are four basic tenets of the servant leadership philosophy. They are; service before self, listening as a means of affirmation, creating trust, and nourishing followers to become whole. One can find a detailed explanation of these ideologies in Birkenmeier, Carson & Carson (2003); according to the scholars, the concept of service before self is the desire to see that the needs of others are given more importance than the personal interests of the leader like material possessions, status, or prestige. Thus, a servant leader will always try to do and promote things which are good even though it offers little material gains. The next important feature of servant leadership as is evident from the work of Kiechel (1992) is the participative decision-making. To illustrate, servant leaders ensure that they listen to the opinion of the followers instead of providing answers. The benefit of this participative decision-making is that the confidence and self-efficacy of the followers are considerably improved. In simple terms, the most important duty of the leader is to identify the will of the group, to express it and further it. Another important feature of servant leadership is the need to create trust in the followers. According to Humphreys (2005), the leaders often try to create trust by exhibiting trustworthiness. In order to achieve this purpose, the leaders will use the strategy of honestly sharing both positive and negative information. Also, the leaders will use the strategy of honestly sharing both positive and negative information. The last feature of servant leadership as found by Daft (1999) is that the leader wants to see that the followers are rising to the level of servant leaders themselves. The explanation in this connection is that as the leaders engage in personal discussions, shared decision-making, and motivation, they are able to share their humanity with the followers. Thus, in the opinion of Dierendonck (2010), there are six essential features of servant leadership; they are empowering and developing people, humility, authenticity, interpersonal acceptance, providing direction, and stewardship. Authentic Leadership – Essential Features In fact, the theoretical basis of the authentic leadership can be traced back to ancient Greeks. According to Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing & Peterson (2008), authentic leadership is a pattern of leader behavior in which the leader promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, great self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders, thus fostering self-development. Scholars like Kernis & Goldman (2006) further elaborated on what is meant by self-awareness. According to them, it refers to the understanding of individual strengths, weaknesses, and the way one makes sense of the world (p. 284-357. Further elaborating on this point, Walumbwa et al (2008) pointed out that the authentic leaders make the followers believe that they are genuinely interested in understanding their own leadership to serve other people in a better way. Again, the leaders in this authentic leadership exhibit strong and deep-rooted personal values. Another important feature of the authentic leadership as evident from the work of Humphreys,Williams, Clayton & Novicevic (2011) is that the leaders work to win the respect and trust of followers. A Look into the Similarities From the above description, it becomes evident that all the leadership concepts; transformational, servant, and authentic, have certain degree of conceptual overlap. Regarding the similarities between transformational leadership and authentic leadership, Humphreys,Williams, Clayton & Novicevic (2011) point out that the two concepts are interrelated. The first point is the content of moral and value system in both the cases. About the moral part of the transformational leadership, Burns (1978, p. 20) points out that a transformational leadership is the kind of leadership in which one or more people engage in such a way that both the leaders and the followers work to raise the motivation and morality of one another. The benefit of this state is that as both try to raise the human conduct and ethical values of each other, both invariably witness a transformation. However, one can see a slight difference in the morality of the leader in these cases. For example, it is pointed out by Bass that in a transformational leadership, the leader tries to make the followers think beyond their individual interests for the benefit of the group. However, the point that goes unnoticed is that the leader might use this situation to promote their own personal interests. In other words, this empowerment could be used for manipulation instead. Thus, there are people like Ehrhart (2004) who believe that transformational leadership cannot be called moral. Another important point is individual consideration. As Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam (1996) point out, transformational leaders are supposed to give attention to the individual character traits of each follower and act as coaches and individual mentors for them. In fact, the work by Humphreys (2005) provides an illustration of the similarities and dissimilarities between transformational leadership and servant leadership. Also, a look into the work by Dierendonck (2010) shows the important features of the servant leadership model. First of all, in all the three cases, one can see the effort to empowering and developing people. As Ronit, Boas & Gilad, (2003) point out, the three basic characteristics of transformational leadership are followers’ identification with the leader, dependence on the leader, and empowerment of the followers by the leader. Similarly Dierendonck (2010) points out that empowering and developing people has been an essential tenet of the servant leadership. This involves developing self-confidence in the followers and giving them more personal power. As a part of this, the employees will be encouraged in self-directed decision making and information sharing. Another important point is the use of trust. One can see that in all the three leaderships, the leaders try to gain the trust and loyalty of the followers. However, one can notice differences in the way the leaders try to achieve the same. In the case of transformational leadership, the leader tries to develop charisma or an aura which makes his followers trust and depend on him. However, servant leadership believes in gaining the trust and loyalty of the workers through humility and open discussion. In servant leadership, the leader does not give the answer. Instead, the leader listens to the followers and promotes self-efficacy in decision-making. Similarly, in authentic leadership the leaders gain the trust of followers through showing that the leader wants to serve them more effectively. For this purpose, the leader may encourage diverse view points and collaborative relationships within the followers. Yet another area of similarity is the intellectual stimulation offered by all three leaderships. As Humphreys observes, the transformational leadership promotes intelligence, rationality, logical thinking, and careful problem solving. Moreover, the work by Humphreys says that it is common for transformational leaders to encourage the followers to look into the old problems and find sensible solutions. Similarly, in servant leadership, the leader tries to promote the overall development of the followers. This includes developing their self-esteem and self-worth. This happens when the followers are given tasks which involve participative decision-making and when the leaders make sure that the spiritual, emotional and physical needs of the followers are fully met. However, the basic difference between transformational leadership and servant leadership is that while the leader provides the solutions and acts as the mentor of the followers in every case, in the latter, the leader acts as the servant of the followers. Also, instead of providing solutions, the leader listens to the insights of the followers and encourages them to be intellectually strong. In the matter of motivation and intellectual stimulation, the authentic leadership seems more similar to transformational leadership. This is so because in the authentic leadership, the leader does not go down to become a servant. Instead, the leader motivates and makes the followers believe that he is genuinely interested in the overall development of the followers. However, the most important and the most noticeable thing in all these leadership models is the individual consideration. It is pointed out by Humphreys (2005) that it is necessary for transformational leaders to observe the personal abilities, disabilities, likes, and dislikes of each of the followers, and help them to overcome each of those hurdles. It is pointed out that the tasks given to each follower should match the capabilities of each follower. However, the only problem associated with this leadership model is that this does not necessarily aim at the overall development of the individual, but it aims to make sure that the employees surrender their personal interests to the interests of the organization. Similarly, in servant leadership, it is pointed out by Greenleaf (1977, p. 12) that the leader should make sure that the emotional, physical, and spiritual needs of the employees should be closely observed and served. In this case, the leader should have strong personal values and morals, and while catering for the needs of the followers, the demands of the organization is not the prime concern. That means, the servant leadership is more altruistic in nature than the transformational leadership. Finally, the authentic leadership points out through the words of Kernis & Goldman (2006, p. 284-357) that the leader should create such an environment in which the psychological capabilities of the followers are promoted in a positive way. Also, other points include positive ethical climate, and self-awareness. Conclusion In total, it becomes evident that all these three leadership styles have a lot of conceptual overlap. The areas of overlap include specific attention given to individual motivation, intellectual stimulation, and developing and retaining trust in the leadership. References Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A & Yammarino, F.J. (1991). The four is of transformations leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(4), 8. Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D.A & Einstein, W.O (1988). Transformational leadership in a management game simulation: Impacting the bottom line. Journal of Group and Organizational Studies, 13(1), 60. Avolio, B. J & Yammarino, F.J. (2002). Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead. Amsterdam: JAI Elsevier Science. Birkenmeier, B., Carson, P.P & Carson, K.D. (2003). The father of Europe: An analysis of the supranational servant leadership of Jean Monnet. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 6 (3), 375. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper. Bass, B. M, (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19. Carss, B. W. (2010). The Measurement of Transformational Leadership Skills in the Workplace. University of Fraser Valey. Retrieved from http://www.ufv.ca/Assets/Writing+Centre/The+Measurement+of+Transformational+Leadership+Skills+in+the+Workplace+The+Path+towards+Innovative+and+High+Performance+Teams.pdf Downton. (1973). Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary Process. New York: Free Press. Daft, R. (1999). Leadership: Theory and practice. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden. Dierendonck, D. (2010). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, XX(X), 5. Ehrhart, M.G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57 (1), p. 67. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Humphreys, J. H., Williams, W. A., Clayton. R & Novicevic, M. M. (2011). Towards the augmenting role of authenticity: Xenophon as leadership theorist. Management & Organization History, 6(2), 183-207. Humphreys, J. H. (2005). Contextual implications for transformational and servant leadership: a historical investigation. Management Decision, 43(10), 3. Kiechel, W. (1992). The leader as servant. Fortune, 125, 121. Kernis, M.H & Goldman, B.M. (2006). A multi-component conceptualization of authenticity: theory and research. In M.P. Zanna (ed), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York: Academic Press. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 386. Laub. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: development of the servant organizational leadership assessment (SOLA) instrument. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (2A:0308), 83. Ronit, K., Boas, S & Gilad, C. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246-255. Smith, B.N., Montagno, R.V & Kuzmenko, T.N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10, 85. Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. New York: Free Press. Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S & Peterson, S.J. (2008). Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 94. Read More