The transactional leader often uses management by exception, working on the principle that if something is operating to defined (and hence expected) performance, then it does not need attention. Exceptions to expectations require praise and reward for exceeding expectations, whilst some kind of corrective action is applied for performances below expectation. Whereas transformational leadership has more off ‘selling’ style, transactional leadership, once the contract is in place, takes a ‘telling’ style. Transactional leadership is based on contingency, in that reward or punishment is contingent upon performance.
The main limitation is the assumption of the ‘rational man,’ a person who is largely motivated by money and simple rewards and hence whose behavior is predictable. The underlying psychology is behaviorism, including Pavlov’s Classical Conditioning and Skinner’s Operant Conditioning. These theories are largely based on controlled laboratory experiments (often with animals) and ignore complex emotional factors and social values. In practice, there is sufficient truth in behaviorism to sustain transactional approaches.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
This is reinforced by the supply-and-demand situation of much employment, coupled with the effects f deeper needs, as in Mason’s Hierarchy. When the demand for a skill outstrips the supply, then transactional leadership often is insufficient and other approaches are more effective. 2. Transformation Theory Transformation theory was introduced by James Burns, but adopted and developed by Bernard Bass in 1978. His main idea is that the key is the impact on the followers. Transformational leadership starts with the development of a vision, a view of the future that will excite and convert potential followers.
This vision may be developed by the leader, by the senior team or may emerge from a broad series of discussions. The important factor is that the leader buys into it- hook, line and sinker. The next step, which in fact never stops, is to constantly sell the vision. This takes energy and commitment, as few people will immediately buy into a radical vision and some will join the show much more slowly than others. The transformational leader thus takes every opportunity and will use whatever works to convince others to climb on board the bandwagon.
In order to create followers, the transformational leader has to be very careful in creating trust and their personal integrity is a critical part of the package that they are ling. In effect, they are selling themselves as well as the vision. Parallel to the selling activity is seeking the way forward. Some transformational leaders know the way and simply want others to follow them. Others do not have a ready strategy, but will happily lead the exploration of possible routes to the promised end. The route forward may not be obvious and may not be plotted in detail, but with a clear vision, the direction will always be known.
Thus, finding the way forward can be an ongoing process of course correction and the transformational leader will accept that there will be failures and blind canyons along the way. As long as they feel progress is being made, they will be happy. The final stage is to remain up-front and central during the action. Transformational leaders are always visible and will stand up to be counted rather than hide behind their troops. They demonstrate how everyone else should behave by their attitudes and actions. They also make continued efforts to motivate and rally their followers, constantly doing the rounds, listening, soothing and encouraging.
It is their unswerving commitment as much as anything else hat keeps people going, particularly through the darker times when some may question whether the vision can ever be achieved. If the people do not believe that they can succeed, then their efforts will flag. The transformational leader seeks to infect and reinvest their followers with a high level of commitment to the vision. One of the methods the transformational leader uses to sustain motivation is in the use of ceremonies, rituals and other cultural symbolism.
Small changes get big hurrahs, pumping-up their significance as indicators of real progress. Overall, they balance their attention between action that creates progress and the mental state of their followers. Perhaps more than other approaches, they are people-oriented and believe that success comes first and last through deep and sustained commitment. Whilst the transformational leader seeks to overtly transform the organization, there is also a tacit promise to followers that they also will be transformed in some way, perhaps to be more like this amazing leader.
In some respects, then, the followers are the product of the transformation. Transformational leaders are often charismatic, but are not as narcissistic as ere charismatic leaders, who succeed through a belief in themselves rather than a belief in others. One of the traps of transformational leadership is that passion and confidence can easily be mistaken for truth and reality. Paradoxically, the energy that gets people going can also cause them to give up. Transformational leaders often have large amounts of enthusiasm which, if relentlessly applied, can wear out their followers.
Transformational leaders also tend to see the big picture, but not the details. If they do not have people to take care of this level of information, then they are usually doomed to fail. Finally, Transformational leaders by definition seek to transform. When the organization does not need transforming and people are happy as they are, then such a leader will be frustrated. Like wartime leaders however, given the right situation, they come into their own and can be personally responsible for saving entire companies. Bass identified four main areas of this type of leadership. 1 . Intellectual Stimulation” – Transformational leaders not only challenge the status quo, they also encourage creativity among followers. 2. “Individualized Consideration” -? Transformational leadership also involves offering support ND encouragement to individual followers. They aim at keeping lines of communication open in order that followers can feel free to share ideas and so that leaders can offer direct recognition of each follower’s unique contributions. 3. “Inspirational Motivation” – Transformational leaders have a clear vision that they are able to articulate well to the followers.
These leaders are also able to help followers experience the same passion and motivation to fulfill these goals. 4. “Idealized Influence” – The transformational leader serves as a role model for followers, because the followers respect and trust he leader; they emulate their leader and internalize his ideals. (Source: – http://psychology. About. Com/odd/leadership/a/transformational. HTML) 3. Contingency Theory What makes leadership effective in a group or organization? Scholars have been preoccupied with addressing this key question perhaps since the inception of leadership as a formal field of scientific inquiry.
One classic approach that gained prominence during the sass and 1 sass is contingency theories of leadership. Contingency theories hold that leadership effectiveness is related to the interplay Of a leader’s traits or behaviors and additional factors. History and Background: The contingency approach to leadership was influenced by two earlier research programs endeavoring to pinpoint effective leadership behavior. During the sass, researchers at Ohio State university administered extensive questionnaires measuring a range of possible leader behaviors in various organizational contexts.
Although multiple sets of leadership behaviors were originally identified based on these questionnaires, two types of behaviors proved to be especially typical of effective leaders: (1 ) Consideration- leader behaviors that include building good rapport and interpersonal relationships, as well as showing support and concern for subordinates. (2) Initiating structure- leader behaviors that provided structure (e. G. , role assignment, planning, scheduling) to ensure task completion and goal attainment.
At about the same time, investigators from the University of Machine’s Survey Research Center conducted interviews and distributed questionnaires in organizations and collected measures of group productivity to assess effective leadership behaviors. The leadership behavior categories that emerged from the University of Michigan were similar to the consideration ND initiating structure behaviors identified by the Ohio State studies. The University of Michigan investigators however, termed these leadership behaviors relation-oriented behavior and task-oriented behavior.
This line of research was later extended by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 to suggest that effective leaders score high on both of these behaviors. Although research consistently supported the dichotomy between task and relations leadership behavior, little evidence suggested that these leadership behaviors were related to increased leadership effectiveness in group performance. Inconsistent findings characterized the bulk of research in this area, and soon the focus of attention on leadership behaviors as direct predictors of leadership effectiveness shifted.
However, researchers did not abandon the task versus relations dichotomy altogether. Instead, an alternative approach was developed that emphasized the potentially critical role of the situational context in linking leadership behaviors or traits to effective outcomes. This alternate approach became known as the contingency theories of leadership. Contingency theory is a branch of behavior theory that claims that good adhering depends on the given situation and particular circumstances and that one strategy will not be suitable across the board.
One of the earliest contingency theories was presented by Fred Fiddler, who, in order to assess leadership, developed a “least preferred co-worker” scale (LIP scale) and asked questions to leaders. Figure 1: Correlation between leader’s LIP scores and group effectiveness (Source: – http://misunderstandings. Com/fiddlers-contingency- model. HTML) The end result was that leaders who scored highly were relationship-oriented and low scorers were task oriented. Fiddler also maintained that the behavior displayed by the leader would be dependent upon 3 main factors which are: 1 .
The relationships between the leader and the team. 2. How well the task is constructed, and 3. The amount of power held by the group’s leader model. HTML)PKZIP 4. New Leadership Theory New Leadership Theory is amongst the new theories. One of which is called Charismatic Leadership. This type of leader aligns himself very strongly to his group and then works on improving the group’s image. This is of greater importance to him, as having aligned himself with the group; the group comes an extension of him. This tactic makes him a very strong leader.
Conger & Kananga (1998) list five behavioral traits attributed to charismatic leaders, they are: 1. Vision and articulation. 2. Sensitivity to the environment. 3. Sensitivity to member needs. 4. Personal risk taking. 5. Demonstrating unconventional behavior. Musses (1987) points out that charismatic leaders aim to promote both commitment to the ideological goal and also devotion to themselves as the group leader. He also maintains that which of these points becomes the group’s primary focus will totally depend on what the leader wants it to be. Dispersal Leadership Dispersal leadership is sometimes referred to as a flat organizational design. It promotes that there should be an inclusively in decision making across all levels of employees, as well as the sharing of power. In a 2002 publication, R. D. Gordon maintains that this theory is too ideological and in reality and practice, there is always a hierarchy of power and dispersed leadership can never truly exist because of man’s inherent tendency to be either a leader or a follower. 2. 2 LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLE # 2 “A Good Leader Knows about Teams and How to Allocate Team Roles ” 6.
Teamwork Theories The most well known team theory is the 1965 Brute TCPMAN model. Many managers know of the TCPMAN model, but that is not the same as knowing how to use it in a daily working life. Groups of people do not begin as a well coordinated team and Dustman’s theory is centered on the fact that a team goes through very definite stages in its life span. Dustman’s theory was developed while he was doing team research for the United States Navy. The four phases include: forming, storming, morning and performing. Later however, in 1 977, TCPMAN added a fifth phase – adjourning
Phase 1 -? Forming The team is grouped together and the goal established. Group members will be working as an independent identity rather than as a team. There will be little trust, although that does not mean hostility has to be the team atmosphere. Phase 2 – Storming The team members feel confident enough to introduce their thoughts on how to achieve the goal. Team members will also be competing for dominant team positions and this can be a very unproductive phase marked by hostility and team competitiveness. Occasionally, without constructive leadership and erection, a team can become trapped in phase 2.
Phase 3 – Morning Team relationships and trust grow and strengthen, and responsibilities and roles are accepted. Phase 4 – Performing The team is working as an efficient machine and there are high levels of trust, respect and positive communication between team members. Phase 5 – Adjourning The goal is accomplished and the team is disbanded. Before TCPMAN, another well-known team theory was presented in 1960 by Douglas McGregor in his book, “The Human Side of Enterprise”. He called his model Theory X and Y. He studied employees and grouped them as character hypes under either X or Y headings.
Theory X people dislike any kind of work and because of this will avoid it whenever possible. McGregor advised managers of this type of worker that they need to maintain a strict working environment of control and punishments if they are to achieve any work output. With Y type characters, work is enjoyed and viewed as a natural and necessary part of life. These are ambitious, hardworking, creative employees. McGregor assumption was to suggest all managers should behave as if all of their employees were type Y characters in order to achieve a happier and ore productive workforce.
If given the right guidance by a strong leader, a successful team, once it has experienced its developing stages, should be able to: ; Set clear objectives and agree to performance goals ; Display healthy and open communication and confrontation ; Have feelings of, and display, support and trust ; Perform well at times of both cooperation and also conflict ; Display good decision making ; Have strong inter-team relationships ; Have formed a strong team member – leader relationship ; Focus on future individual improvement opportunities.
Dry Meredith Bellini’s Team Role Theory was developed in 1981 and presented in his book “Management Teams – Why They Succeed or Fail”. It was his belief that “a team is not a bunch of people with job titles but a congregation of individuals, each of whom has a role which is understood by other members. Members of a team seek out certain roles and they perform most effectively in the ones that are most natural to them” (Beeline, 1981).
It was important to Beeline that people understood that his team roles were developed in order to measure behavior and not a team members actual personality traits. Today’s Bellini’s Team-Roles Model is widely used all over the world, as it is an advantage to try to ensure that the right behavior is in the right team role. 7. Team Motivation The word motivation is common in everyday language, but is not easy to define rigorously in a scientific context. The concept of motivation is related to, but distinct from other concepts, such as instincts, drives, and reflexes.
Motivated behavior is usually goal oriented; the goal may be associated with a drive such as hunger or thirst (called primary motivation). However, motivation is also closely tied to sensory stimuli: an animal will not usually exhibit eating behavior unless food is presented. Unlike instinctive behavior, motivation depends on affect (emotional state). Finally, motivation can be learned (in which case it is called secondary motivation) and typically elicits more complex behaviors than simple reflexes.