Leader and followers

Mirazizbazarov - 2011
1
Malcom Subblefield is considering the leader-follower theory from different perspectives, such as:
-leader-member exchange theory
-adaptive change theory
-social identity theory
He notes that the effective communication linkages and relationship building is necessary for leader-
follower theory
One way to make effective organization is theory of adaptive change, when the leader encourages
followers to face hard realities leader encourages followers to “develop new strategies and learn new
ways of operating”
Then he considers the work of Kellerman, who develops different categories of followers, such as
isolates, bystanders, participants, activists, and diehards. They have to be treated differently to achieve
better performance - everyone should have distinctive approach.
Leader-Follower Theory: Meaning and Impact
Then he concludes that there is a high impact of leader-follower theory on management and the
workplace environment
______________________________________
By Malcolm J. Stubblefield
Jaunuary 2010
As we consider the impact of leader-follower theory – the methods used by leaders and
followers to interact be it through leader-member exchange theory (Phillips & Bedeian,
1994), adaptive change theory (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001), or social identity theory (Hogg,
2001), two import components must be present and continuously massaged by both the leader
and his/her followership, they are: effective communication linkages and relationship
building. When these components are frayed (or nonexistent) the effectiveness of leader-
follower exchange is considerably diminished which can negatively impact management and the
environment (Kellerman, 2007). That said, I turn now to addressing the meaning and impact of
leader-follower theory as it relates to management and/or workplace environment.
Heifetz & Laurie (2001) offer an interesting perspective for leader-follower interchange relating
to radical factors that present themselves in the course of daily routines. Through the theory of
adaptive change the leader encourages (coerces) followers to face hard realities – ‘adaptive
challenges’ – that are presented within their work environments. The leader encourages
followers to “develop new strategies and learn new ways of operating” (p. 132).

As problems are resolved and decisions made to address circumstances that are ever present
within the organizational environment, the methods used to reach solvable conclusions or
develop a plan of attack are critical. From a metaphorical perspective, getting a bird’s eye view
of the organization and the issues that must be confronted has its advantages. As Heifetz &
Laurie (2001) put forth, “leaders have to be able to view patterns as if they were on a
balcony” (p. 132). From this vantage point, the leader is in a better position to communicate and
provide the followership guidance as they (followers) set about addressing and finding their own
solutions to critical problems. Indeed, when followers are empowered to formulate, regulate,
and initiate adaptive change, buy-in that influences an effective leader-follower exchange is
more abundant then when the leader alone is relegated to offer a solution. It is this writer’s
opinion that leaders who use of adaptive change theory forge a leader-follower relationship that
is positively influenced though the incorporation of effective communication and relationship
building competencies
Still another perspective of the leader-follow theory presents evidence that leaders exist because
of followers and followers exit because of leaders (Hogg, 2001). Hence, social identity theory
goes to the heart of relationship building and effective communication linkages that must exist
between leaders-followers and followers-followers. As followers become integrated in groups
they form group identities, a sense of competitiveness towards other groups, and the need to
actively influence desired outcomes. As they gain influence and staying power group members
establish agendas, achieve collective goals, and gain group power. Thus the group establishes
its own leadership prowess that can be used to challenge or support their respective leader.
The dynamics of the group’s social identity when applied to the leader-follower relationship can
help or hinder a leader’s decision-making capabilities.
An interesting corollary is established through the work of Kellerman (2007), who categorizes
followers as isolates, bystanders, participants, activists, and diehards (p. 87). Isolates are
individuals who are completely detached; they could care less about the organization, their peers,
or their leader. Their involvement in the organization is strictly self-fulfilling – the receipt of a
paycheck. Bystanders pay attention but do little in the form of involvement: they stand on the
sideline and observe. They are a step up from the isolates and provide little if any support to the
leader or the organization. Participants can be counted on to demonstrate measurable support or
alienation towards the leader or the organization. They too fall into the self-serving category.
Activists express their feelings about their leader and organization in both a positive or negative

manner. They hold true to their beliefs and convictions. That said, “They work hard either on
behalf of their leaders or to undermine and even unseat them” (p. 89). And finally, diehards will
stick to the cause that they believe in. They can be a leader’s best asset or worse
nightmare. Within the organization they rank as the minority within the work force, but can be a
force to be reckoned with.
The impact leader-follower theory has on management and the workplace environment is far
reaching. The personality of the leader and, likewise the personalities of followers, set the stage
for meaning dialogue and desired outcomes. How this dyadic relationship matures is predicated
on effective communication and relationship building. As stated earlier in this paper without
these two components the leader, followers, and the organization suffer.
References
Heifetz, R., & Laurie, D. (2001). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 79 (11),
131-141.
Hogg, M. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality & Social Psychology
Review, 5 (3), 184-201.
Kellerman, B. (2007). What every leader needs to know about followers. Harvard Business
Review, 85 (12), 84-91
(Source:
http://leadmcg.com/success/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=133:leader-
follower-theory&catid=49:lead-publications&Itemid=103)
2
Ira Chaleff appraises the transformational leader as an effective one in many cases, contrasting to
authoritarian one and others
She also proposes several question on how to be effective change agent or partner, this questions
include the questioning the skills required to attain the current leadership position, to be better
utilized to help accomplish the organization's mission, about what the pressures and challenges
on the leader and leader's self-interest. Answering these questions to the leaders begins a process
of transformation. Barriers to organizational performance can then get discussed. Learning and
growth can occur.

______________________________________
COURAGEOUS FOLLOWERS, COURAGEOUS
LEADERS
NEW RELATIONSHIPS FOR LEARNING AND
PERFORMANCE
IRA CHALEFF
How many times have you worked in an organization in which bright, mid-level
managers were frustrated by the difficulty of influencing senior executives whose
leadership style was impeding organizational growth, productivity or morale?
'Young Turks', as they are sometimes called, are often brimming with energy to
innovate and test new ways of meeting organizational challenges. The senior
executives, who cultural myth holds to be the change agents, are often mired in old
ways of doing things with which they are comfortable. They are the roadblock, not the
road, to innovation.
Alternatively, these bright, mid-level people, may be dismayed to watch a new senior
executive who does not fully appreciate how the company works, start reorganizing,
downsizing, outsourcing or merging in ways that will not be viable. Anyone daring to
question the new broom is quickly earmarked as someone who needs to go. Silence
reigns. A year or two later, the board and the investors are left to clean up the mess
resulting from the leader's high-handed style.
It is the quality of the relationship of leaders and followers, all the way up and down
the organization chart, that makes or breaks organizations. Those lower down in the
organization have more direct experience with its people, processes and customers
and need to be able to influence the leaders' thinking on which way the organization
should go. They cannot be intimidated by the power and trappings of office of the
leaders to whom they report. Yet, as we know, they often are intimidated.
Traditional leadership theory puts the responsibility for the leader-follower
relationship with the leader. In my observation, it often works the other way around.
Those who work most closely with the leader, the senior 'followers' if you will, need
to assume responsibility for keeping their relationship with the leader honest,
authentic and courageous. 'Yes men' need not apply.
There are two distinct roles that executives and managers are called upon to play. One
is the role of leader in their own right. The other is the role of courageous follower.

Endless attention is paid to leadership qualities, selection, training, development and
evaluation. Who ever pays attention to how well these same individuals perform their
role as courageous followers? Virtually no one. Why is this?
We are a society in love with leadership and uncomfortable with followership, though
the subjects are inseparable. We don't honor followership. We talk pejoratively of
followers being weak individuals. And we certainly don't train staff how to be strong
followers who are not only capable of brilliantly supporting their leaders, but can also
effectively stand up to them when their actions or policies are detrimental and need
rethinking.
As a result, the orientation of those around the leader often becomes personal survival
instead of group optimization. Optimum group performance requires that both leaders
and followers place the organization's welfare at least on par with protecting their
personal interests. As Chris Argyris of Harvard observes, in most groups the
individuals are so concerned with avoiding embarrassment or personal threat, they shy
away from the conversations that need to occur to fundamentally improve
performance. This is the antithesis of the vaunted 'Learning Organization'. Important
issues become undiscussable.
Where thinly disguised authoritarian relationships still prevail (leader dictates,
follower complies or else) team members are driven down Abraham Maslow's
hierarchy of motivation. Their needs for physical security and social acceptance
outweigh pride in organizational achievement. Instead of risking the conversations
that are needed to address leadership's own contributions to mediocre performance,
they "play the game" and conform, regardless of the cost to the organization.
If leaders are exceptionally smart, they create environments in which such honest
communication is the norm and rewarded. But, human nature seems to conspire
against this and, most of the time, few speak truth to power. If they do so, and they get
rebuffed, they don't do it again. Instead, they complain to each other and to their
spouses, but no longer to the person who needs to hear the message and do something
about it.
How many times have you found yourself in this position in an organization? How
much do you think this type of behavior costs organizations? But if you find yourself
in a follower role with a leader who is not using his or her power well, why should
you risk your job by seeking to change the status quo? The simplest answer is because
it is a better way to live. Win or lose, you've carried yourself with integrity and self-
respect.
The more complex answer is that, if you aspire to senior leadership positions yourself,
you'd better learn to take risks. Leaders who can't risk, can't lead. Here's a chance to
get in practice.

How do you go about this? I believe that there is a two part answer to transforming
leader-follower relations and creating the conditions in which a learning organization
can emerge. The first part has to do with ourselves, the second with "the other."
At the heart of all transformation of relationships lies transformation of ourselves.
This is both where we have the most power to create change and the most reluctance
to confront the need for it. In this instance, the process starts with an honest
examination of how we have learned to cope with authority relationships. Do we tend
to be subservient? Cynical? Prickly and rebellious? Functional, but always playing it
safe?
These and other patterns exert a price on the relationship. Ideally we would have
mature relationships between self-confident, mutually respectful, emotionally and
intellectually honest peers, each operating from a prescribed role for the common
good. Often this is no more easily achieved between managers and subordinates than
it is between forty year old adults and their overbearing parents. Focusing on our own
end of the relationship, rather than on what is being done to us, is usually the best
place to start.
Some of the key points to examine and reflect on include:
 Am I energetically pursuing the group's purpose and aligning my self-
interests with it? Or, am I holding back my full contribution, including my
willingness to take risks?
 Do I need to take more initiative to ensure that the group is effectively
pursuing its mission? Will the way I am behaving in this relationship, or in
authority relationships generally, permit me to do that, or do I need to try
new behaviors?
 What is my power based on in this situation that would enable me to take
greater initiative? What combination of knowledge, skills, reputation,
positional authority, networks and communication channels can I bring to
bear? Who do I need to align myself with to effectively create the needed
change?
 Why am I hesitant to act? Have I given up hope? Become cynical? Do I
think that someone else will take the first step? Have I let myself off the
hook because I raised my concern once and it wasn't acted on? Doesn't
mature, responsible behavior require persistence?
 Do the perceived risks of taking the initiative require courage in order to
act? If so, what are my personal sources of courage on which I can draw?
If I don't know, how can I find out? Living effectively requires courage.

 Have I earned the leader's trust so that I have a platform from which to
speak? If not, why not? Is my own performance not up to what it needs to
be? If so, how will I remedy that?
 Do I have the skills to effectively confront the leader without making him
or her defensive? Can I convey that what I am saying is in his or her
interest to hear? If not, how will I develop those skills?
The clearer we become about our end of the relationship with a leader, the more
effectively we can approach "the other" end. This is the second part of the answer. We
can make several mistakes in this regard to which we must be alert.
One error is to rationalize away the leader's behavior. We can genuinely like the
leader as an individual and admire many of his or her character traits. Because,
overall, we like the leader, we tolerate the counterproductive or dysfunctional
behavior. But in doing so, we let the organization go on paying a steep price for this
behavior. Moreover, we are placing this leader, whom we like, at risk because sooner
or later, the behavior will catch up with him and the consequences are often
regrettable.
An opposite, and even greater error we can make is to lose our respect for the leader.
In a leader-follower relationship that has deteriorated, much like in a deteriorated
marriage, we are so painfully aware of the other's shortcomings that we lose sight of
the other's strengths, struggles and value.
To be an effective change agent or partner, we need to reconnect with what is right
about the leader's behavior. It is only from a platform of respect for the other that we
can initiate transformation efforts without being perceived and treated as a threat. In
this case, it is helpful to reflect on such questions as:
 What skills and attributes enabled the leader to attain the current
leadership position? How were these adaptive in the environment in which
the leader developed?
 Are there ways, with a little modification, that these skills and attributes
can be better utilized to help accomplish the organization's mission? What
specifically would make a difference and how can I effectively
communicate that?
 What pressures and challenges is the leader under now? Are those
challenges pushing the leader to rely on old 'proven' habits rather than
risk new, potentially more productive behaviors?
 If the group gave the leader greater support, or a different type of support
in dealing with those challenges, might there be less reliance on the
dysfunctional behaviors? How can we do this?

 What in the leader's self-interest can I appeal to that would make the
leader more receptive to making changes?
Answering these questions in relation to ourselves and our leaders begins a
process of transformation. Barriers to organizational performance can then get
discussed. Learning and growth can occur.
We can apply the same strategy towards peers whose style or performance is holding
back the team. When we are receptive to both receiving and initiating honest and
respectful feedback, to having difficult but necessary conversations, we can help our
team break unproductive patterns and learn new, healthy ways of communicating and
working together.
We spend so much of our lives with the people with whom we work. We may as well
do so with elan, with a forthright style that meets the world head on. If we are willing
to risk having our efforts rejected, we may be surprised at how well they work. There
is great satisfaction in positively influencing a leader or an organization so that its
performance and morale improves.
It is also the best training for becoming a leader who knows how to create such
organizations. When will you start?
(Source: http://www.exe-coach.com/courageous.htm)
3
Leadership Advantage LLC tells that the movement away from command and control leadership
has brought new leadership styles that are more democratic and coach-like. The terms "shared
leadership and servant leader" are used to describe some of these new ways of interacting. There
are also new ways of interacting in the follower role.
The article also describes the findings of Chaleff, who concludes that there are three things thtat
are needed to understand in order to fully assume responsibility as followers.
-Understand their power and how to use it
-Appreciate the value of the leader and the contributions he or she makes
-Work toward minimizing the pitfalls of power
Chaleff also notes the Five Dimensions of Courageous Followership, which are namely:
-The The Courage to Assume Responsibility.
-The Courage to Serve.
-The Courage to Challenge

-The Courage to Participate in Transformation
-The Courage to Take Moral Action.
Then they talk about the danger of the leader-follower relationship, which prevailing of leader’s
opinion. For their own success, leaders need to create a partnering environment where support
and challenge flourish in a healthy and balanced manner and working as a “coach”
______________________________________
The Leader-Follower Partnership: It's a New Day
From the Leadership Actions Newsletter
"Leaders rarely use their power wisely or effectively over long periods unless they are
supported by followers who have the stature to help them do so." -- Ira Chaleff, The
Courageous Follower, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2003
Organizations are successful or not partly on the basis of how well their leaders lead, but also
in great part on the basis of how well their followers follow. Surely, improving the
performance of followers should be worthwhile. What is the role of the follower and how does
it affect leadership behavior and effectiveness? How can members of the executive team
participate more effectively to create a truly dynamic partnership relationship with their
leader? The relationship between leader and follower is truly symbiotic - you can't have one
without the other.
When there is a crisis, when a company fails or commits some malfeasance, everyone cries
out: "How could that have happened here? How come nobody said anything?" Followers have
a responsibility to speak up. And the organization, if it wishes to be sustainably successful,
has an equal obligation to create the environment for them to safely do so.
No matter how much partnership and empowerment there is, the CEO has ultimate authority
and has ultimate responsibility. But what about the responsibilities of the CEO's followers?
The most capable team members fail when they gripe about their leader but do not say or do
anything to help him or her improve or get back on track. To do this requires both courage and
skill.
The movement away from command and control leadership has brought new leadership styles
that are more democratic and coach-like. The terms "shared leadership," and "servant leader"
are used to describe some of these new ways of interacting. There are also new ways of
interacting in the follower role. Setting aside possible aversion to the term, the new flatter
business organization requires more responsible followers and more follower-friendly leaders.
Managing the Boss
It is difficult to appreciate the pressures on the leader unless you have been in that position.
While ego-strength is a quality to be desired in a leader, it can be overly reinforced and
transformed into ego-driven. The pressures at the top need to be managed. Courageous
followers help leaders stay on track and manage their decision-making processes in the right
direction. Responsible and effective followers play a critical role in maintaining the desired
partnership dynamics.
Many executive team members do act responsibly, but often they are hesitant to speak up
when the leader makes mistakes or press the issue when they meet resistance. Although we
have grown beyond an authoritarian leadership model where followers have no accountability,
we have not yet developed a model for responsible participation at the follower level for the
new leadership styles.
In his book, The Courageous Follower, Standing Up To and For Our Leaders, Ira Chaleff

points out that the old paradigm of the leader/follower is based on power. The leader has
traditionally had the "power" to award or withhold perks, benefits, bonuses, choice
assignments, promotions, and the like. This has led to a relationship in which the follower
avoids jeopardizing the chances of obtaining these rewards. Hence, followers tend to do what
the leader wants and, just as importantly, not offend or create a negative impression of
themselves. A relationship based on this kind of power does not serve the organization, the
leader, or the follower because it shuts down the open flow of communication and candor
leaders need to do their job effectively. After all, who will tell the emperor he has no clothes?
Chaleff envisions a very different kind of relationship between leader and follower. He suggests
a relationship wherein the leader and follower have equal power but different roles that orbit
around support and fulfillment of the organizations' purpose. When both the leader and follower
are focused on the common purpose, a new relationship between them arises. This new
relationship is candid, respectful, supportive, and challenging. It is a relationship that honors
open communication, honesty, and trust from both parties.
Many in leadership positions bemoan the fact that they are not getting full and candid
information from their staffs. Being aware of all the facts is crucial for effective decision
making. And yet, in too many situations, followers are reluctant to present negative
information for fear of repercussions. Most people do not relish being the bearer of bad news,
much less becoming the messenger who gets shot. Case in point: How many organizations
have recently had to "restate" or correct their earnings statements after the fact, due to
oversights, errors, or even malfeasance? And why, in those situations, did people not step up
and voice their misgivings? In an environment where the focus of both leaders and followers
is on serving the purpose of the organization, these problems are far less likely to occur. In
such an environment, followers are likely to give voice to their concerns and instincts and
leaders welcome, value, and pay attention to them.
The Job of Effective Followers
The sooner we recognize and accept the powerful position of followers, the sooner we can
fully develop responsible, synergistic relationships in our organizations. According to Chaleff,
there are three things we need to understand in order to fully assume responsibility as
followers.
Understand our power and how to use it. As followers, we have far more power than we
usually acknowledge. We must understand the sources of our power, whom we serve, and the

tools we have to achieve the group's mission. We have a unique vantage point as followers or
team members, but we have to know that and use it.
Appreciate the value of the leader and the contributions he or she makes to forward the
organization's mission. We need to understand the pressures upon the leader that can wear
down creativity, good humor, and resolve. We can learn how to minimize these forces and
contribute to bringing out the leader's strengths for the good of the group and the common
purpose.
Work toward minimizing the pitfalls of power by helping the leader to remain on track for the
long-term, common good. We are all witness to how power can corrupt, and it takes courage
and skill to speak up. We can learn how to counteract the dark tendency of power. Feedback
to the leader is necessary for the new leadership styles to be effective.
The Five Dimensions of Courageous Followership
Chaleff further identifies and defines what is required of followers to become an equal partner
with the leader in fulfilling the purpose of the organization.
The Courage to Assume Responsibility. Courageous followers assume responsibility for
themselves and the organization.They do not hold a paternalistic image of the leader or
organization, nor do they expect either to provide for their security and growth or give them
permission to act. They initiate values based action. Their "authority" comes from their
understanding and ownership of the common purpose.
The Courage to Serve. Courageous followers are not afraid of hard work and they assume
additional responsibilities to unburden the leader and serve the organization. They stand up for
the leader and the tough decisions he/she must make. They are as passionate as the leader in
pursuit of the common purpose.
The Courage to Challenge. Courageous followers give voice to the discomfort they feel when
the behaviors or policies of the leader or group conflict with their sense of what is right. They
are willing to stand up, stand out, to risk rejection, and to initiate conflict in order to examine
the actions of the leader or group when appropriate.
The Courage to Participate in Transformation. Courageous followers champion the need for
change and stay with the leader and group while they mutually struggle with the difficulty of
real change. They examine their own need for transformation and become full participants in
the change process as appropriate.
The Courage to Take Moral Action. Courageous followers know when it is time to take a
stand that is different from the leaders. The stand may involve refusing to obey a direct order,
appealing the order to the next level of authority, becoming a whistleblower, or tendering
one's resignation. This may involve personal risk but service to the common purpose justifies
and sometimes demands such action.
Another View
Robert E. Kelley, in his landmark article in Harvard Business Review, "In Praise of
Followers" (1988), states: "In an organization of effective followers, a leader tends to be more
an overseer of change and progress than a hero. As organizational structures flatten, the
quality of those who follow will become more and more important." He sees four essential
qualities of effective followers.
They manage themselves well: The key to being effective as a follower is paradoxically the
ability to think for oneself. Followers also see themselves as equals to the leader they follow.
They are committed to a higher purpose: They work towards the purpose of the organization
and to certain principles and values outside of themselves. If they see a misalignment with
personal values, they may withdraw their support either by changing jobs or by changing
leaders.
They build their strengths: They have high standards of performance and are continually

learning and updating their skills and abilities. They seek out extra work and responsibilities
gladly in order to stretch themselves.
They take risks: They are credible, honest and have the courage to speak up. They give credit
where due but also admit mistakes. They are insightful and candid, and they are willing to
take risks. They can keep leaders and colleagues honest and informed.
In information-age organizations, hundreds of decentralized units process and rapidly act on
varied input within the design and purpose of the organization. This requires an entirely
different relationship between leaders and followers.
Speaking up to the Boss
Part of the problem in following responsibly and courageously lies in the tendency for people
to relate to authority figures as they would to a parent. Early childhood memories are deeply
embedded in the subconscious, and old patterns of behavior and emotion are triggered in a
nanosecond. These memories are often outside of our awareness, and it does not take much - a
look, a tone of voice - to trigger anger or anxiety when confronted by the boss. Developing
one's emotional intelligence (Daniel Goleman, Primal Leadership, 2002), can help regulate
these split second reactions and allow more productive and satisfying interactions.
The danger in the leader-follower relationship is the assumption that the leader's interpretation
will prevail. If this assumption exists on the part of either the leader or the follower, both are
at risk. The leader's openness will diminish. Followers will easily lose their unique perspective
and abandon healthy disagreement. Creativity and the problem-solving processes become
stifled.
For their own success, leaders need to create a partnering environment where support and
challenge flourish in a healthy and balanced manner. Though it may not be an easy task for
followers to speak up and challenge the leader, it is a skill they must learn. Absent these
conditions, corporate scandals will continue to occur. Working with a neutral party such as an
executive coach can help both leaders and followers develop these abilities and go home at
night feeling more productive and worthwhile.
References/Resources for The Leader-Follower Partnership: It's a New Day
Chaleff, I. (2002). The Courageous Follower, Standing up to & for Our Leaders. (2nd ed.).
San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal Leadership, Realizing the Power of
Emotional
Intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). The Power of Servant Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler
Publishers, Inc.
Kelley, R. E. (1988, Nov.-Dec.). "In Praise of Followers." Harvard Business Review. Reprint
88606
( Source: http://www.leadershipadvantage.com/newday.html)

4
Heather Rothbauer-Wanish discussees the The leader-follower theory, also known as the leader-
member exchange theory, which focuses on the interactions between leaders and followers.
Then she notes the difference between In-Group and Out-Group Members, the first receive more
information, are shown more concern, and may be more dependable and more communicative
After that she discusses the Extraversion and Introversion aspects, because leaders and followers
are also influenced by general attitudes. She concludes that leaders and followers with similar
attitudes will have a successful working relationship
______________________________________
Sep 24, 2009Heather Rothbauer-Wanish
The leader-follower theory, also known as the leader-member exchange theory (LMX), is a
leadership theory that focuses on the interactions between leaders and followers.
Workplace environments are based on interactions between employees and management.
Because of this, the LMX theory has great impact in today’s workplaces.
Leader and Follower Interaction
The interaction between leaders and followers helps to shape the success or failure of an
organization. The very concept of a team-oriented workplace, commonality toward goals and a
productive work environment stem from the leader-follower interaction. Without a successful
relationship between these groups, effective leadership will not occur, nor will outstanding
workplace success.
Many leadership models suggest that leaders utilize a similar leadership style toward all
members of a work group. However, the LMX theory surmises that leaders actually develop a

different relationship among different members of the work group. When different relationships
exist between management and members of the same work group, various situations can occur in
the workplace, leading to the formation of an in-group and out-group.
Members of an in-group tend to receive more information, are shown more concern, and may be
more dependable and more communicative. Whether an employee falls into the in-group or out-
group can have a major impact on their performance and relationship with management in the
workplace. The knowledge and recognition of being an in-group member or an out-group
member impacts the way that individuals work and act in the workplace.
Because of their perceived extra efforts, leaders are more willing to give these in-group members
extra support. Over time, the extra support these employees receive may cause them to perform
better and more consistently.
If out-group members consistently meet the minimum goals and never attempt to achieve more,
they will never become members of the in-group. This impacts the workplace because these out-
group members may have new and innovative ideas that never become shared knowledge simply
because leaders in the organization discount these individuals as out-group members.
Extraversion and Introversion
Similar to the ideas behind the in-groups and out-groups, extraversion and introversion can also
play a role in the success of the LMX model. In the LMX model, an extravert would be
considered an in-group member, while an introvert would be an out-group member. These
extraverts may monopolize the leaders’ time, thus leading to group dominance and an overall
larger effect on the group’s dynamics.
In addition to introversion and extraversion aspects, leaders and followers are also influenced by
general attitudes. This perspective indicates that those leaders and followers with similar
attitudes will have a successful working relationship. This can also be an indicator of the success
of workplace communication, various projects and general cohesiveness as a work unit.
The benefit of the LMX model is that it does analyze the behavior of both leaders and followers.
If leaders can recognize which types of followers are present within the organization,
modifications can be made to include all followers as much as possible. Whether employees are
members of the in-group, out-group or are introverts or extroverts, everyone can make
meaningful contributions to the workplace environment.

( Source: http://heather-rothbauer-wanish.suite101.com/leaderfollower-lmx-leadership-
theory)a152196)
5
Kendra Cherry discusses the main leadership theoris, including:
-"Great Man" Theories
-Trait Theories
-Contingency Theories
-Situational Theories
-Behavioral Theories
-Participative Theories
-Management Theories
-Relationship Theories
So that the reader could compare all the types of theories with the last one - Relationship
Theories (also known as transformational theories) - which is mainly focused on connections
formed between leaders and followers
______________________________________
Kendra Cherry
Leadership Theories - 8 Major Leadership Theories
Interest in leadership increased during the early part of the twentieth century. Early leadership
theories focused on what qualities distinguished between leaders and followers, while
subsequent theories looked at other variables such as situational factors and skill levels. While
many different leadership theories have emerged, most can be classified as one of eight major
types:
1. "Great Man" Theories:

Great man theories assume that the capacity for leadership is inherent – that great leaders are
born, not made. These theories often portray great leaders as heroic, mythic and destined to rise
to leadership when needed. The term "Great Man" was used because, at the time, leadership was
thought of primarily as a male quality, especially in terms of military leadership. Learn more
about the great man theory of leadership.
2. Trait Theories:
Similar in some ways to "Great Man" theories,trait theories assume that people inherit certain
qualities and traits that make them better suited to leadership. Trait theories often identify
particular personality or behavioral characteristics shared by leaders. If particular traits are key
features of leadership, then how do we explain people who possess those qualities but are not
leaders? This question is one of the difficulties in using trait theories to explain leadership.
3. Contingency Theories:
Contingency theories of leadership focus on particular variables related to the environment that
might determine which particular style of leadership is best suited for the situation. According to
this theory, no leadership style is best in all situations. Success depends upon a number of
variables, including the leadership style, qualities of the followers and aspects of the situation.
4. Situational Theories:
Situational theories propose that leaders choose the best course of action based upon situational
variables. Different styles of leadership may be more appropriate for certain types of decision-
making.
5. Behavioral Theories:
Behavioral theories of leadership are based upon the belief that great leaders are made, not born.
Rooted in behaviorism, this leadership theory focuses on the actions of leaders not on mental
qualities or internal states. According to this theory, people can learn to become leaders through
teaching and observation.
6. Participative Theories:
Participative leadership theories suggest that the ideal leadership style is one that takes the input
of others into account. These leaders encourage participation and contributions from group

members and help group members feel more relevant and committed to the decision-making
process. In participative theories, however, the leader retains the right to allow the input of
others.
7. Management Theories:
Management theories, also known astransactional theories, focus on the role of supervision,
organization and group performance. These theories base leadership on a system of rewards and
punishments. Managerial theories are often used in business; when employees are successful,
they are rewarded; when they fail, they are reprimanded or punished. Learn more about theories
of transactional leadership.
8. Relationship Theories:
Relationship theories, also known as transformational theories, focus upon the connections
formed between leaders and followers. Transformational leaders motivate and inspire people by
helping group members see the importance and higher good of the task. These leaders are
focused on the performance of group members, but also want each person to fulfill his or her
potential. Leaders with this style often have high ethical and moral standards.
6
______________________________________
In her next article Kendra Cherry discuss the term Transformational Leadership and its main
distinctions.
She notes that Transformational leadership is leading to positive changes in those who follow.
She also adds that transformational leaders are usually energetic, enthusiastic and passionate.
After the description of The History of Transformational Leadership, she emphasizes the work of
Bass also suggested that there were four different components of transformational leadership:
-Intellectual Stimulation
-Individualized Consideration

-Inspirational Motivation
-Idealized Influence
__________
Have you ever been in a group situation where someone took control of the situation by
conveying a clear vision of the group’s goals, a marked passion for the work and an ability to
make the rest of the group feel recharged and energized? This person just might be what is called
a transformational leader.
Transformational leadership is a type of leadership style that leads to positive changes in those
who follow. Transformational leaders are generally energetic, enthusiastic and passionate. Not
only are these leaders concerned and involved in the process; they are also focused on helping
every member of the group succeed as well.
The History of Transformational Leadership
The concept of transformational leadership was initially introduced by leadership expert and
presidential biographer James MacGregor Burns.1According to Burns, transformational
leadership can be seen when “ leaders and followers make each other to advance to a higher level
of moral and motivation." Through the strength of their vision and personality, transformational
leaders are able to inspire followers to change expectations, perceptions and motivations to work
towards common goals.
Later, researcher Bernard M. Bass expanded upon Burns original ideas to develop what is today
referred to as Bass’ Transformational Leadership Theory.2 According to Bass, transformational
leadership can be defined based on the impact that it has on followers. Transformational leaders,
Bass suggested, garner trust, respect and admiration from their followers.
The Components of Transformational Leadership
Bass also suggested that there were four different components of transformational leadership.
1. Intellectual Stimulation – Transformational leaders not only challenge the status quo; they
also encourage creativity among followers. The leader encourages followers to explore new
ways of doing things and new opportunities to learn.

2. Individualized Consideration – Transformational leadership also involves offering support
and encouragement to individual followers. In order to foster supportive relationships,
transformational leaders keep lines of communication open so that followers feel free to
share ideas and so that leaders can offer direct recognition of each followers unique
contributions.
3. Inspirational Motivation – Transformational leaders have a clear vision that they are able
to articulate to followers. These leaders are also able to help followers experience the same
passion and motivation to fulfill these goals.
Idealized Influence – The transformational leaders serves as a role model for followers.
Because followers trust and respect the leader, they emulate the leader and internalize his or her
ideals.
(Source: http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/a/transformational.htm)
7
In his article Iain Hay gives a very comprehensive analysis of transformational leadership – the
type of leadership which is very focused on the relationship between the leader and follower and
concludes that transformational leaders can be very effective and potential, if they are using their
charisma, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation,
which is very important in current unstable business environment. However, he also notes about
different disadvantages and hazards, such as idealized influence and thus choosing wrong part by
the leader and thus followers.
Transformational Leadership: Characteristics and Criticisms

Iain Hay
School of Geography, Population and Environmental Management
Flinders University

A prime function of a leader is to keep hope alive. (John W. Gardner)
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm. (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Setting an example is not the main means of influencing another, it is the only means.
(Albert Einstein)
Collectively, these three short quotations capture some of the key characteristics of
transformational leadership, a form of leadership argued by some (Simic, 1998) to match the
Zeitgeist of the post-World War II era. Academic debate about the nature and effectiveness of
transformational leadership has developed since key work on the topic emerged in the 1970s.
This short paper sets out to provide summary answers to three main questions about
transformational leadership. What is it? How is it applied? What are some of its key weaknesses?
In the course of the discussion, the following pages also provide a brief background to the
origins of transformational leadership theory and point quickly to a possible theoretical future for
a transformed transformational leadership.
Transformational Leadership Theory
According to Cox (2001), there are two basic categories of
leadership: transactional and transformational. The distinction between transactional and
transformational leadership was first made by Downton (1973, as cited in Barnett, McCormick &
Conners, 2001) but the idea gained little currency until James McGregor Burns’ (1978) work on
political leaders was published. Burns distinguished between ordinary (transactional) leaders,
who exchanged tangible rewards for the work and loyalty of followers, and extraordinary
(transformational) leaders who engaged with followers, focused on higher order intrinsic needs,
and raised consciousness about the significance of specific outcomes and new ways in which
those outcomes might be achieved (Barnett, McCormick & Conners, 2001; Cox, 2001; Gellis,
2001; Griffin, 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). The idea of transformational leadership was
developed further by Bernard Bass, now Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Organizational
Behavior, at the State University of New York (Binghampton), who disputed Burns’ conception
of transactional and transformational leadership as opposites on a continuum. He suggested
instead that they are separate concepts and that good leaders demonstrate characteristics of both
(Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 755).
Interest in transformational leadership over the past three decades is the result of two
tendencies (Simic, 1998, p. 50). First, significant global economic changes from the early 1970s
– which followed on from about 25 years of post-World War 2 stability – meant that many large
western companies such as General Motors and AT&T had to consider radical changes in their
ways of doing business. Factors such as rapid technological change, heightened levels of
competition, a rising flow of products from newly industrialized countries, volatility in OPEC
(Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) pricing strategies, and changing demographic
structures created a turbulent, unstable and competitive environment in which significant
organizational change was imperative. Changes often included downsizing and the adoption of
new forms of organizational arrangement. These amendments took their toll on worker
satisfaction and empowerment and broke “the old social contract of long-term employment in
return for employee loyalty” (Griffin, 2003, p. 1). Because companies needed to resolve the
apparently contradictory challenge of finding new ways of affecting change while
simultaneously building employee morale, new approaches to leadership were needed (Conger,
1999). Second, the theoretical base of work on leadership that prevailed in the 1970s was
founded in explorations of traits, behaviours, and situations (contingency theories) and failed to
account of some ‘untypical’ qualities of leaders (Simic, 1998, p. 50).

Transformational leadership is that which:
… facilitates a redefinition of a people’s mission and vision, a renewal of their
commitment and the restructuring of their systems for goal accomplishment. It is a
relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and
may convert leaders into moral agents. Hence, transformational leadership must be
grounded in moral foundations.
(Leithwood, as cited in Cashin et al., 2000, p.1)
Transformational leadership fosters capacity development and brings higher levels of
personal commitment amongst ‘followers’ to organizational objectives. According to Bass
(1990b, p. 21) transformational leadership “occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the
interests of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and
mission of the group, and when they stir employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the
good of the group.” Together, heightened capacity and commitment are held to lead to additional
effort and greater productivity (Barbuto, 2005; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Spreitzer, Perttula &
Xin, 2005).
Transformational leaders elevate people from low levels of need, focussed on survival
(following Maslow’s hierarchy), to higher levels (Kelly, 2003; Yukl, 1989). They may also
motivate followers to transcend their own interests for some other collective purpose (Feinberg,
Ostroff & Burke, 2005, p. 471) but typically help followers satisfy as many of their individual
human needs as possible, appealing notably to higher order needs (e.g. to love, to learn, and to
leave a legacy). Transformational leaders are said to engender trust, admiration, loyalty and
respect amongst their followers (Barbuto, 2005, p. 28). This form of leadership requires that
leaders engage with followers as ‘whole’ people, rather than simply as an ‘employee’ for
example. In effect, transformational leaders emphasize the actualization of followers (Rice,
1993). Transformational leadership is also based on self-reflective changing of values and beliefs
by the leader and their followers. From this emerges a key characteristic of transformational
leadership. It is said to involve leaders and followers raising one another’s achievements,
morality and motivations to levels that might otherwise have been impossible (Barnett, 2003;
Chekwa, 2001; Crawford, Gould & Scott, 2003; Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory, 2004).
Though an understanding of transformational leadership predicated on its outcomes
appears to have been achieved, Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) observe that despite (or perhaps as
a result of) over four decades of work in the field (see, for example, Bennis, 1959), the literature
in educational leadership offers no single conception of the processes that constitute
transformational leadership. For instance, Gronn (1996) remarks on the close relationship
between charismatic and transformational leadership while pointing out the absence of notions
of charisma in some work transformational leadership. And most authors in the field propose
that four factors make up transformational leadership whereas Leithwood (Leithwood & Jantzi,
2000) suggests six[1]. These are set out in Table 1 below.
The Four Common I’s Leithwood’s Six
1. Idealized influence[2]. Charismatic vision
and behaviour that inspires others to
follow.
2. Inspirational motivation. Capacity to
motivate others to commit to the vision.
3. Intellectual stimulation. Encouraging
innovation and creativity.
4. Individualized consideration. Coaching
to the specific needs of followers.
1. Building vision and goals.
2. Providing intellectual
stimulation.
3. Offering individualized support.
4. Symbolizing professional
practices and values.
5. Demonstrating high
performance expectations.
6. Developing structures to foster
participation in decisions.

Sources: Barbuto (2005); Hall, Johnson,
Wysocki & Kepner (2002); Judge & Piccolo,
2004; Kelly (2003); Simic (1998).
Source: Leithwood & Jantzi (2000).
Table 1. Dimensions of Transformational Leadership.
Nevertheless, it is clear that general understandings of transformational leadership are
dominated by acceptance of the four dimensions set out in the left-hand column of Table 1 (see,
for example, Stone, Russell & Patterson (2003)). These factors have been confirmed by
empirical work in the area (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003, p. 208). In 1985 Bernard Bass
devised the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), an instrument intended to measure
transformational and transactional leader behaviours. Over the past two decades, and following
application in scores of research studies involving military, educational, and commercial
organizations (see, for example, Gellis, 2001), the MLQ has emerged as the primary means of
quantitatively assessing transformational leadership (Bryant, 2003; Griffin, 2003). An outcome
of this work is the isolation of four factors now accepted as being exhibited by effective
transformational leaders. Their additive effect is summarized in Figure 1.
Idealized influence (attributes and behaviours)
+
Individualized consideration
+
Inspirational motivation
+
Intellectual stimulation
=
Performance Beyond Expectations
Source: Hall, Johnson, Wysocki and Kepner (2002, p. 2).
Figure 1. The Additive Effect of Transformational Leadership.
Idealized influence is about building confidence and trust and providing a role model
that followers seek to emulate (Bono & Judge, 2004, p. 901; Simic, 1998, p. 52; Stone, Russell &
Patterson, 2003, p. 3). Leaders are “admired, respected, and trusted” (Bass, Avolio, Jung &
Berson, 2003, p. 208). Confidence in the leader provides a foundation for accepting (radical)
organizational change. That is, followers who are sure of the virtues of their leader will be less
likely to resist proposals for change from her/him. Clearly, idealized influence is linked to
charisma (Gellis, 2001, p. 18). Charismatic leadership is a characteristic of transformational
leadership and depends on leaders as well as followers for its expression (Kelly, 2003). The link
between charismatic and transformational leadership is clearest during times of crisis within an
organization such as when Lee Iacocca took over and resurrected the ailing Chrysler
Corporation in the 1970s and 1980s (Kelly, 2003).
Inspirational motivation is related to idealized influence but whereas charisma is held to
motivate individuals, inspirational leadership is about motivating the entire organization to, for
example, follow a new idea. Transformational leaders make clear an appealing view of the
future, offer followers the opportunity to see meaning in their work, and challenge them with
high standards. They encourage followers to become part of the overall organizational culture
and environment (Kelly, 2003; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). This might be achieved
through motivational speeches and conversations and other public displays of optimism and
enthusiasm, highlighting positive outcomes, and stimulating teamwork (Simic, 1998, p. 52).
Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech and US President John F. Kennedy’s vision of
putting a man on the moon by 1970 stand out as exceptional examples of this characteristic

(Yukl, 1989, p. 221). Through these sorts of means, transformational leaders encourage their
followers to imagine and contribute to the development of attractive, alternative futures (Bass,
Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003, p. 208).
Intellectual stimulation involves arousing and changing followers’ awareness of
problems and their capacity to solve those problems (Bono & Judge, 2004; Kelly, 2003).
Transformational leaders question assumptions and beliefs and encourage followers to be
innovative and creative, approaching old problems in new ways (Barbuto, 2005). They empower
followers by persuading them to propose new and controversial ideas without fear of punishment
or ridicule (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). They impose their own ideas judiciously and
certainly not at any cost (Simic, 2003, p. 52).
Individualized consideration involves responding to the specific, unique needs of
followers to ensure they are included in the transformation process of the organization (Simic,
1998, p. 52). People are treated individually and differently on the basis of their talents and
knowledge (Shin & Zhou, 2003, p. 704) and with the intention of allowing them to reach higher
levels of achievement than might otherwise have been achieved (Chekwa, 2001, p. 5; Stone,
Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). This might take expression, for example, through expressing
words of thanks or praise, fair workload distributions, and individualized career counseling,
mentoring and professional development activities. Clearly then, besides having an overarching
view of the organization and its trajectory, the transformational leader must also comprehend
those things that motivate followers individually (Simic, 2003, p. 52).
Together, the four main dimensions of transformational leadership are interdependent;
they must co-exist; and they are held to have an additive effect that yields performance beyond
expectations(Gellis, 2001; Hall, Johnson, Wysocki & Kepner, 2002; Kelly, 2003).
· clear sense of purpose, expressed
simply (e.g. metaphors, anecdotes)
· value driven (e.g. have core values
and congruent behaviour)
· strong role model
· high expectations
· persistent
· self-knowing
· perpetual desire for learning
· love work
· life-long learners
· identify themselves as change agents
· enthusiastic
· able to attract and inspire others
· strategic
· effective communicator
· emotionally mature
· courageous
· risk-taking
· risk-sharing
· visionary
· unwilling to believe in failure
· sense of public need.
· considerate of the personal needs of
employees
· listens to all viewpoints to develop
spirit of cooperation
· mentoring
· able to deal with complexity,
uncertainty and ambiguity
Sources: Bass (1990a); Cox (2001); Epitropaki (undated); Hall, Johnson, Wysocki &
Kepner (2002); Lussier & Achua (2004); Stone, Russell & Patterson (2003); Tichy &
Devanna (1986); and University of Regina (undated).
Table 2. Characteristics of Transformational Leaders.
Table 2 summarizes the characteristics that, according to the extant literature, accompany
the four foundational attributes of a transformational leader. Collectively, they do suggest a
human being of remarkable capabilities! Nevertheless, on foundations provided by the four

dimensions of transformational leadership (Table 1 and Figure 1) and the various associated
characteristics (Table 2), transformational leaders are people who can create significant change
in both followers and the organization with which they are associated (Griffin, 2003). They lead
changes in mission, strategy, structure and culture, in part through a focus on intangible qualities
like vision, shared values and ideas, and relationship building. They are able to give significance
to diverse activities, illustrating, for example, the ways in which different people and groups
might be working towards larger organizational objectives. Transformational leaders also find
common ground that allows them to enlist followers in processes of change.
Following Carlson and Perrewe (1995), ERIC (1992), Lussier and Achua (2004), and
Yukl (1989) there are four stages of organizational change under transformational leadership.
First, it is necessary to make a compelling case for change. The transformational leader helps to
bring about change by making a convincing case for it. This characteristically involves
heightening followers’ sensitivity to environmental changes and challenges and questioning the
status quo. For instance, the case for change within a school or some other educational
environment might be made by inviting government department spokespeople to the school to
present an overview of policy and related contexts or by highlighting levels of performance
relative to other, similar organizations.
Second, it is important to inspire a shared vision, seeking broad input, and encouraging
everyone to think of a new and better future. This needs to be cast in ideological rather than just
economic terms. This might be achieved by involving all staff in the shaping and reshaping of
the school/department’s strategic plan on a regular basis. Staff might be surveyed to establish
their wants and needs. For example, in an educational context, a school principal or department
head could also visit classrooms regularly (and encourage others to do the same) to better gauge
collective requirements (ERIC, 1992). Inspiring a shared vision will also be achieved through
coaching and conscious role modeling strategies.
Third, change needs to be led. A sense of urgency must be instilled. Collaboration has to
be encouraged and the self-confidence of followers’ must be increased. In effect, it is vital to
create an environment conducive to the creation and sharing of knowledge (Bryant, 2003, p. 37).
Public recognition of achievements and successful (shared) initiatives might help serve these
ends. Private notes of congratulation to successful followers can also help foster self-confidence
(ERIC, 1992). It is also necessary at this stage, to deal with the emotional resistance that
typically accompanies change and this may be achieved through careful recognition of the
individuals needs of staff or followers.
Finally, change needs to be embedded. This is achieved by, for example, monitoring
progress, changing appraisal and reward systems, and hiring staff with a commitment to
collaboration. Together these should also empower followers to help achieve the organization’s
objectives. What leaders pay attention to, what they measure and how they measure it, and what
they control (Carlson & Perrewe, 1995) are critical factors in transforming an organization’s
culture and embedding new ways of thinking and acting.
In summary:
“the transformational leader articulates the vision in a clear and appealing
manner, explains how to attain the visions, acts confidently and optimistically,
expresses confidence in the followers, emphasizes values with symbolic actions,
leads by example, and empowers followers to achieve the vision (Stone, Russell
& Patterson, 2003, p. 4).
That transformational leadership is successful has been demonstrated by studies in a
diverse range of professional and cultural settings, including military, schools and corporations
(Bryant, 2003, p. 36). However, in their recent study of ‘traditionality’ in Taiwan and the United
States, Spreitzer, Perttula & Xin (2005) make it clear that while transformational leadership is
effective regardless of culture, the level of effectiveness depends to some extent on cultural
values. People with traditional cultural values see weaker links between transformational

leadership and leader effectiveness than those with less traditional values. Transformational
leadership has also been demonstrated to result in a “high level of follower motivation and
commitment and well-above-average organizational performance, especially under conditions of
crisis or uncertainty” (Bryant, 2003, p. 36). As Carlson and Perrewe (1995, p. 834) observe,
major changes in the organization’s mission, strategies and level of follower commitment are
likely to emerge as a result of transformational leadership. On the basis of their analysis of
several legal cases, Odom and Green (2003) argue that principles of transformational leadership
(i.e., intellectual stimulation, idealized influence) applied to ethical dilemmas faced by managers
offers the prospect of less litigation and better ethical outcomes than the more common
transactional approach to ethics. Within educational environments teachers are more likely to
collaborate and are held to be more likely to have positive attitudes to school improvement and
to new forms of instructional behaviour as a result of transformational leadership (ERIC, 1992).
Successful Transformational Leaders
Although the idea of transformational leadership is relatively recent, people who have
demonstrated the characteristics of this form of leadership have existed for many years. For
instance, Yates (2002) argues that Genghis Khan was a transformational leader who, during the
late 12th and early 13th centuries, united fiercely independent Mongol tribes to ultimately create
one of the largest land empires ever seen. Another transformational leader is Lou Gerstner –
retired Chairman and CEO of IBM. He turned IBM around from $8.1 billion loss in 1993 after
identifying part of the company’s problem as ‘success syndrome’. That is, having been one of
the greatest commercial institutions on Earth from the 1960s-1980s, IBM had become insular
and rigid (Sheppard, 2002). Gerstner completely transformed the culture of the organization
through, for example, modeling desired behaviour and abolishing IBM’s notorious dress code to
reflect better the attire of their customers (Sheppard, 2002).
Lee Iacocca is a transformational leader who is credited with saving the Chrysler
Corporation. He took over Chrysler when it was on the brink of bankruptcy and set about
transforming the ideals of his closest subordinates. In turn, that began to reshape the
corporation’s culture. Because a transformational leader encourages others to becomes
transformational leaders, soon the entire organization was filled with effective leaders (Kelly,
2003).
One high profile transformational leader from educational environments is Dr Ruth
Simmons, the first African-American to be appointed President of an ‘Ivy League’ university
(Brown) in the USA. Earlier, as President of Smith College Simmons had started an engineering
program - the first ever at a women’s university in the USA. Simmons was a transformational
leader who herself attributed her own successes to her kindergarten teacher, Ms Ida Mae
Henderson, who had advised her she could do anything in her heart she set out to achieve
(Chekwa, 2001).
Within military and government contexts, General Colin Powell overcame entrenched
racism (particularly in the US military) and low institutional expectations of African Americans
to become chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1989. He went further, becoming in 1991
the first African American to become US Secretary of State, a position some said he filled with
vision and the qualities of a transformational leader (Chekwa, 2001).
Other transformational leaders include Christine Nixon, the current Police Chief
Commissioner in the Australian state of Victoria, who is popularly understood to have
transformed the culture of that police force for the good, and Sir Richard Branson, responsible
for international Virgin enterprises (Lussier & Achua, 2004).
These are positive examples of transformational leaders but as critics (e.g., Yukl, 1989)
point out, transformational leadership is not without its dark side and other flaws.
Criticisms of Transformational Leadership
The morality of transformational leadership has been questioned, especially by
libertarians and organizational development consultants (Griffin, 2003). A key criticism is that

within it transformational leadership has potential for the abuse of power (Hall, Johnson,
Wysocki & Kepner, 2002). Transformational leaders motivate followers by appealing to strong
emotions regardless of the ultimate effects on followers and do not necessarily attend to positive
moral values. As Stone, Russell and Patterson (2003, p. 4) observe, transformational leaders can
exert a very powerful influence over followers, who offer them trust and respect. Some leaders
may have narcissistic tendencies, thriving on power and manipulation. Moreover, some
followers may have dependent characters and form strong and unfortunate bonds with their
leaders (Stone, Russell and Patterson, 2003, p. 4). Further, as Bass (1997) notes, transformational
leadership lacks the checks and balances of countervailing interests, influences and power that
might help to avoid dictatorship and oppression of a minority by a majority. In the absence of
moral rectitude it is self-evident then that transformational leadership might be applied for less-
than-desirable social ends. Yukl (1989, p. 226) describes this as the “dark side of charisma” and
goes on to note (p. 227) that for every example of a positive transformational leader
demonstrating charismatic qualities (e.g., Mohandas [Mahatma] Ghandi), there is an equally
negative example (e.g., Charles Manson). The Rev Jim Jones, who led the massive Jonestown
suicide, is an example of a transformational leader from the ‘dark side’ (Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory, 2004). These criticisms about the morality of transformational
leadership have been addressed by the argument that to be truly transformational, leadership
must have moral foundations (Griffin, 2003). Thus: “To bring about
change, authentic transformational leadership fosters the modal values of honesty, loyalty, and
fairness, as well as the end values of justice, equality, and human rights.”(Griffin, 2003, p. 8.
Emphasis added).
There is an argument that transformational leadership is facilitative of change because it
contributes to organizational improvement, effectiveness and institutional culture (Barnett,
McCormick & Conners, 2001). As such, it is appropriate in environments of turbulence and
change such as those that prevail in many organizations in the mid-2000s. However, this view is
contested by Barnett, McCormick and Conners (2001) whose study of twelve secondary schools
in New South Wales, Australia revealed that teachers may in fact be distracted from
concentrating on learning-and-teaching by, for example, taking time away from students to be
involved in the corporate school initiatives an inspirational, transformational principal expects of
them.
Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) conclude that transactional leaders more commonly apply
teleological ethics whereas transformational leaders deploy deontological[3] ethics. In short, these
two approaches to leadership stand on different moral foundations. As some recent work in
ethics suggests (Israel & Hay, 2006), ethical decision-making is best founded on both
approaches.
Bass (1997) usefully summarizes some of the other criticisms of transformational
leadership. It lends itself to amoral self promotion by leaders since it makes use of impression
management. He suggests it is anthithetical to organization learning and development involving
shared leadership, equality, consensus and participative decision-making. It encourages
followers to go beyond their own self-interests for the good of the organization and may
emotionally engage followers in pursuit of evil ends. This point is supported by Carlson and
Perrewe (1995) who remind us that an organization’s culture socializes individuals into that
culture. While acceptable behaviour might be supported in this way, so too might socially
unacceptable behaviour. Finally, Bass notes that transformational leadership can see followers
manipulated in ways that may see them lose more than they gain.
The Future of Transformational Leadership
And so what is the future of transformational leadership? There seems to be an emerging
orthodoxy in the literature favoring a blend of transactional and transformational leadership (e.g.,
Bryant, 2003; Gellis, 2001; Hoyt & Blascovich, 2003). However, Sanders, Hopkins and Geroy
(2003) propose an extension to both through what they call ‘transcendental leadership’. Their
model suggests three structural levels of leadership accomplishment, these being transactional,

transformational, and transcendental, and they suggest that a leader’s development along three
dimensions of spirituality – consciousness (mind), moral character (heart) and faith (soul) – is
associated with these levels of leadership accomplishment. They argue for the need to society
and organizations to recognize the need for and embrace spirituality. Traditional leadership
theories are said to concentrate on external manifestations of leadership but the model proposed
by Sanders, Hopkins and Geroy (2003) indicates that leadership is best understood by adding
consideration of the leader’s internal components. While their very new theory is yet to be tested
empirically, their intent is to help bring spirituality out of the ‘closet’ (p. 29) and to weave it
coherently into new understandings of leadership.
Conclusion
Through charisma, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation and inspirational
motivation, transformational leaders have great potential to promote performance beyond
expectations and to effect enormous changes within individuals and organizations. It appears to a
be a form of leadership well-suited to these current times characterized by uncertainty, global
turbulence and organizational instability. However, as we have seen from examples such as the
horrors of Jonestown, there are some risks associated with this form of leadership, particularly
with respect to idealized influence. The capacity for individual and organizational transformation
must be accompanied by moral responsibility, for transformational leaders shape powerful social
and institutional cultures which may either be liberating or oppressive.

References
Barbuto, J.E. (Jnr) (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational
leadership: a test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
11(4), 26-40.
Barnett, A. (2003, November). The impact of transformational leadership style of the school
principal on school learning environments and selected teacher outcomes: a preliminary
report. Paper presented at NZARE AARE, Auckland, New Zealand. Manuscript available
from the author.
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. (1990a). Bass & Stodgill’s Handbook of Leadership. Theory, Research and
Managerial Applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1990b). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 13, pp. 26-40.
Bass, B.M. (1997). The ethics of transformational leadership. KLSP: Transformational
Leadership, Working Papers. Retrieved August 3, 2006,
fromhttp://www.academy.umd.edu/publications/klspdocs/bbass_pl.htm
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), pp. 207-218.
Bennis, W.G. (1959). Leadership theory and administrative behavior: the problem of
authority. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, pp. 259-260.
Bono, J.E. & Judge, T.A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), pp. 901-910.
Bryant, S.E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing
and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 9(4), pp. 32-44.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Carlson, D.S. & Perrewe, P.L. (1995). Institutionalization of organizational ethics through
transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(10), pp. 829-839.
Cashin, J., Crewe, P., Desai, J., Desrosiers, L., Prince, J., Shallow, G. & Slaney, S. (2000).
Transformational Leadership. Retrieved August 3, 2006
fromhttp://www.mun.ca/educ/ed4361/virtual_academy/campus_a/aleaders.html
Chekwa, E. (2001, July 12-14). Searching for African American transformational leaders.
Academy of Business and Administrative Sciences 4th International Conference, Quebec
City, Canada. Manuscript available from the author.
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),
pp. 145-170.
Cox, P.L. (2001). Transformational leadership: a success story at Cornell
University. Proceedings of the ATEM/aappa 2001 conference. Retrieved March 17,
2004, from http://www.anu.edu.au/facilities/atem-aappaa/full_papers/Coxkeynote.html
Crawford, C.B., Gould, L.V., & Scott, R.F. (2003). Transformational leader as champion and
techie: implications for leadership educators. Journal of Leadership Education, 2(1), pp.
1-12.
Epitropaki, O. (undated). What is transformational leadership? Institute of Work Pyschology,
University of Sheffield, England.
ERIC. (1992). Transformational leadership. ERIC Digest, Number 72. Retrieved March 8, 2004,
from http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed347636.html

Feinberg, B.J., Ostroff, & Burke, W.W. (2005). The role of within-group agreement in
understanding transformational leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 78, 471-488.
Gellis, Z.D. (2001). Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in
health care. Social Work Research, 25(1), pp. 17-25.
Gronn, P. (1996). From transactions to transformations: a new world order in the study of
leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 24(1), pp. 7-30.
Hall, J., Johnson, S., Wysocki, A. & Kepner, K. (2002). Transformational leadership: the
transformation of managers and associates. Retrieved August 3, 2006,
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), pp. 678-715.
Israel, M. & Hay. I. (2006). Research Ethics for Social Scientists: between ethical conduct and
regulatory compliance. London: Sage.
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.
Kelly, M.L. (2003, January 1). Academic advisers as transformational leaders. The
Mentor. Retrieved August 3, 2006, from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/030101mk.htm
Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational
conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration,
38(2), p. 112.
Lussier, R.N. & Achua, C.F. (2004). Leadership: theory, application, skill development (2nd
ed.). Eagan, MN: Thomson-West.
Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps. (undated). Leadership and management: Transactional
and transformational leadership. Retrieved March 29, 2004
from http://nrotc.wisc.edu/battalioncourses/naval
Odom, L. & Green, M.T. (2003). Law and the ethics of transformational leadership. Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, 24(1/2), pp. 62-69.
Rice, J.B. (1993). Transactional and transformational leadership: an analysis of male and female
leadership styles in Delaware public schools. Abstract of EdD dissertation completed at
Widener University, Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 3, 2006
from http://muse.widener.edu/~egr0001/Dissertations/RiceW.html
Sanders, J.E.(3rd), Hopkins, W.E. & Geroy, G.D. (2003). From transactional to transcendental:
toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 9(4), pp. 21-31.
Sheppard, P. (2002). Leading the turnaround: Lou Gerstner of IBM. Wharton Leadership Digest.
Retrieved August 3, 2006, from http://leadership.wharton.upenn.edu/digest/02-03.shtml
Shin, S.J. & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: evidence
from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), pp. 703-714.
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 August 3, 2006 from http://www.sedl.org/change/leadership/history.html
Spreitzer, G.M., Perttula, K.H. & Xin, K. (2005). Traditionality matters: an examination of the
effectiveness of transformational leadership in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 205-227.
Stone, A.G., Russell, R.F., & Patterson, K. (2003). Transformational versus servant leadership –
a difference in leader focus. Servant Leadership Roundtable – October 2003. Retrieved
August 3, 2006
from http://www.regent.edu/acad/cls/2003servantleadershiproundtable/stone.pdf
Tichy, N.M. & Devanna, M.A. (1986). The Transformational Leader. New York, NY: John
Wiley.

Yates, M. (2002) Genghis Khan. LeaderValues. Retrieved August 3, 2006
from http://www.leader-values.com/historicalleaders/
Yukl, G.A. (1989). Leadership in Organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Leader and followers

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Leader and followers

Ähnlich wie Leader and followers (20)

Mehr von Miraziz Bazarov

Mehr von Miraziz Bazarov (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Leader and followers