Leadership, Personal Development & Career Management - Coursework Example

? Leadership, Personal Development & Career Management Total Number of Words 999 Introduction The use of an effective leadership style is necessary when it comes to managing organisational change. According to Bass and Riggio (2006, p. 3), transactional leaders include those individuals who are capable of leading through a social exchange. As compared to the use of transactional leadership style, Burke (2002, pp. 201–203) argued that the use of transformational leadership style is the best in terms of business management or implementing a discontinued change within a given business organisation. Basically, transformational leaders are known for their ability to stimulate a large group of employees intellectually and make full use of their charismatic approach (Bass and Riggio, 2006, p. 6; Burke, 2002, p. 243). On top of being able to create vision for future business development, transformational leaders are able to effectively inspire and motivate employees to stay committed to organisational goals and produce an exceptional performance outcome (Bass and Riggio, 2006, p. 3; Burke, 2002, p. 243; Bass, 1999). Considering all these leadership qualities, the use of transformational leadership style is considered the most effective leadership strategy particularly when inspiring a group of employees to support the success of an organisational goal or the implementation of an organisational change (Bass, 1999). It is said that there is a counterargument or criticism for each theory. Contrary to the benefits of using transformational leadership when managing organisational change, this essay will focus on discussing the arguments and criticisms made by different authors with regard to the use of transformational leadership. As part of going through the main discussion, several cases will be used to defend the argument that transformational leadership style is not the best leadership approach after all. Criticism and/or Counter-Criticism behind the Use of Transformational Leadership Style Earlier, it was mentioned that transformational leadership is composed of four main criteria known as: (1) inspirational motivation; (2) idealised influence; (3) intellectual stimulation; and (4) individualised consideration (Armstrong and Muenjohn, 2008; Bass and Riggio, 2006, p. 3; Burke, 2002, p. 243). Oftentimes, the use of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is strongly associated with the theory of transformational leadership (Tracey and Hinkin, 1998). In relation to the use of the MLQ scale when assessing the construct of transformational leadership, Tracey and Hinkin (1998) strongly concluded that there are flaws in the factor structure of MLQ as compared to the four major compositions of transformational leadership. Furthermore, Northouse (2007) pointed out that the four major compositions of transformational leadership style are not enough to distinctively classify transformational leadership as a type of leadership style that is entirely different from other leadership styles (i.e. transactional leadership style, authoritative leadership style etc). Other studies also criticised the transformational leadership style in relation to the use of the MLQ instrument (Tajeda, Scadura and Pillai, 2001; Bass, 1999). In line with this, Tajeda, Scadura and Pillai (2001) argued that the MLQ as an instrument does not have an adequate or precise approach, which can serve as a research framework that can increase the success rate of having a highly consistent and reliable research study result. Based on the criterion that is currently present in the MLQ instrument, researchers can only have the opportunity to gather a qualitative-based research findings and not a quantitative result (Tajeda, Scadura and Pillai, 2001). For this reason, research studies carried out on transformational leadership through the use of the MLQ questionnaire can be subject to an increased risk of becoming easily manipulated by the researchers’ own personal judgment. As a result, Tajeda, Scadura and Pillai (2001) argued that the research findings based on the use of the MLQ questionniare has an increased risk of compromising the validity and accuracy of the research findings. Similar to the arguments made by Tajeda, Scadura and Pillai (2001), Bass (1999) also asserted that the research findings based on the use of the existing MLQ questionnaire are subject to a higher risk of having an invalid research study conclusion. In this respect, Bass (1999, p. 24) explained that heavy reliance on the use of ‘heterogenous samples’ of corporate leaders, such as those who belong to different management levels, cultural background, and types of organisation, could somehow distort what is truly being expected from the leader. Similar to the research study made by Bass (1999), Antonakis, Avolio and Sivasubramaniam (2003) evaluated the leadership style using the psychometric properties of both MLQ and the Full Range of Leadership Model (FRL). In line with this, Antonakis, Avolio and Sivasubramaniam (2003, p. 283) argued that the application of the MLQ questionnaire is not the best choice when it comes to assessing the leadership behaviour of leaders due to the fact that most of the researchers have failed to use homogenous samples. As a result, there is an increased risk, where the researcher may end up having skewed research findings when assessing the behavioural perspective of a leader (Antonakis, Avolio and Sivasubramaniam, 2003). Based on the theory behind transformational leadership, this group of leaders is using the inspirational motivation approach in order to make other people become more self-efficient. In this context, Yukl (1999) claimed that the significance of the variable such as ‘trust’ in the relationship between the leaders and followers, as well as the significance of ‘trust’ to the followers’ work attitude and behaviour has not been properly tested to provide us with concrete evidence that the theory behind transformational leadership is really valid and reliable. There is a strong possibility that one of the main reasons why a corporate leader is able to increase the work performance of a large group of employees is his or her ability to win the trust of these people rather than merely relate the leadership success to the use of transformational leadership style. Transactional leadership is more dependent on the use of a reward system when motivating a large group of people (Brown and Dodd, 1999). On the other hand, transformational leadership is more than the use of a reward system as a way of motivating employees to support an organisational goal (Bass and Riggio, 2006, p. 4). Instead of heavily using some type of reward system, Bass and Riggio (2006, p. 4) explained that what most transformational leaders do is to move the concept of leadership to another level by focusing more on inspiring other people and challenging them to solve organisational problems. In relation to the context of idealised influence, Yukl (1999, p. 287) contended that there is no substantial evidence or highly reliable past and current studies that can prove that the use of transformational leadership style is effective in terms of motivating employees to become self-efficient or develop optimistic attitudes and beliefs or an increased loyalty and commitment when using reward contingencies. In this regard, Bryman (2004) asserted that there should be a scientifically proven relationship between the use of the charismatic leadership approach and its ability to strongly influence other people to support the goals set by organisational leaders. Unfortunately, Bryman (2004, p. 754) maintained that the mechanism behind the use of the charismatic approach remains unclear. For these reasons, one can easily say that some parts of the theory behind transformational leadership are generally flawed. The theory on transformational leadership has also been criticised for being too much selective on top of giving uneven or inconsistent emphasis on having a perfect leadership at the expense of a large group of subordinates (Northouse, 2007, p. 193). With regard to this particular criticism, transformational leaders are often characterised with certain traits, such as being charismatic, that most of the group subordinates could seldom encounter in real-life scenarios. In line with this, Bass argued that having a charismatic trait is merely just an example of a characteristic that represents what a real transformational leader should be (Northouse, 2007, pp. 179–180). Other criticisms concerning the theory behind transformational leadership include the fact that most of the gathered data on this particular leadership style came from the top management leaders (Armstrong and Muenjohn, 2008). For this reason, Armstrong and Muenjohn (2008) pointed out that most of what we can read about the theory on transformational leadership may not be applicable to some leaders in different business organisations. In general, most of the transformational leaders are known for their ability to play a significant role when it comes to managing organisational change or directing a large group of employees to create and support a single organisational vision (Armstrong and Muenjohn, 2008). Therefore, Northouse (2001, p. 147) criticised the theory on transformational leadership style based on the fact that the use of this particular leadership approach may promote the development of anti-democratic behaviour. In other words, through the use of transformational leadership style, the leaders may unconsciously manipulate the rest of down-line employees (Armstrong and Muenjohn, 2008). Specifically, the process of unconsciously manipulating the rest of down-line employees is totally contradictory to what the theory of transformational leadership is trying to project (Armstrong and Muenjohn, 2008). Based on the theory of transformational leadership, transformational leaders are expected to empower employees by inspiring and motivating them to become a leader in their own little ways (Elliott, 2001, p. 31). This explains why Armstrong and Muenjohn (2008) questioned the use of transformational leadership based on its ethical dimension. Conclusion A lot of criticism and counter-criticism has been made with regard to the theory behind the use of transformational leadership style. It includes the fact that this particular leadership style is too perfectionist as compared to what types of leaders we often see around us. Other criticisms include the validity and reliability of research findings each time the MLQ scale questionnaire is used to conduct a primary research study on the behavioural aspect of transformational leaders; the kind of samples used in the primary research on transformational leadership (i.e. homogenous samples, heterogeneous samples etc); failure to examine the significance of ‘trust’ in the ability of transformational leaders to make employees become self-efficient; valid or concrete evidence that can literally prove that the use of the transformational leadership style can prove its claim; and the conflicting ideas between unconsciously manipulating the rest of group subordinates and the need to empower each individual to become a leader in their own little ways. Despite all the criticism and counter-criticism made on the theory of transformational leadership style, it is undoubtably that this particular leadership theory is useful in terms of providing us with a rational model that can describe what is expected in an effective leader that can readily meet the requirements of most modern business organisations. In line with this, Huczynsky and Buchanan (2007, pp. 720–722) explained that the modern business organisations oftentimes need to have collaborative teams that are highly motivated to work towards a single organisational goal (Bass and Riggio, 2006, p. 3; Burke, 2002, p. 243; Bass, 1999). Since the use of transformational leadership style is known for encouraging the rest of employees to practise work participation using motivational and inspirational approaches, one can easily argue that the use of this particular leadership style promotes the development of a more flexible working environment. In general, personal development is all about taking time to learn more about one’s own strengths and weaknesses so as to gain more opportunity to develop one’s own ability to reach one’s own potential growth. On the other hand, career management is all about planning how a person can maximise his full potential in his chosen or preferred career. In relation to personal development and career management purposes, it is essential to know more about the advantages and limitations behind the use of transformational leadership style. By slowly taking time to examine the criticism and counter-criticism made on the theory of transformational leadership, one can easily have an idea of what the application of transformational leadership can do when it comes to managing people. References Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. and Sivasubramaniam, M. (2003). Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), pp. 261–295. Armstrong, A. and Muenjohn, N. (2008). The ethical dimension in transformational leadership. Journal of Business System, Governance, and Ethics, 3(3), pp. 21–35. Bass, B. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), pp. 9–32. Bass, B. and Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, F. and Dodd, N. (1999). Rally the troops or make the trains run on time: the relative importance and interaction of contingent reward and transformational leadership. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 2(6), pp. 291–299. Bryman, A. (2004). Quantitative research on leadership: a critical but appreciative review. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), pp. 729–769. Burke, W. (2002). Organizational Change: Theory and Practice. Sage Publication. Elliott, R. and Engebretson, K. (2001). Chaos or clarity: encountering ethics. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Social Science Press. Huczynsky, A. and Buchanan, D. (2007). Organizational behaviour: an introductory text. 6th ed. FT Prentice Hall. Northouse, P. (2001). Leadership theory and practice. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication Inc. Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: theory and practice. 4th ed. Sage Publication. Tajeda, M., Scadura, T. and Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: psychometric properties and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), pp. 31–52. Tracey, J. and Hinkin, T. (1998). Transformational leadership or effective management practices? Group & Organization Management, 23(3), pp. 220–236. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership tehories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), pp. 285–305. Read More