Transformational and participative leadership in organizational change

Strategic Management: Two Leadership Theories
Introduction
Leadership is one of the most important aspects of any organizational culture. Leaders help to define what a company is and what it aims to be. They set the tone, set the model behavior, set the standard, and communicate the vision. Bad leaders, good leaders, ineffectual leaders—it makes no difference: each one will have an impact on the organization’s employees and that impact will reflect the type of leader at the top. As Schyns and Schilling (2013) show, bad leaders make organizations worse: they kill morale, make workers feel isolated and unsupported, and can even inspire outright malice in some. Good leaders, on the other hand, can move an organization that needs to change its pace to new heights by boosting performance, motivating workers, strengthening the workplace culture and providing the support that people need to become self-actualizing (Maslow, 1943). A good leader will tend to have a good leadership style or theory in mind whenever he is trying to oversee an organizational change. This paper will compare and contrast two leadership theories that can be effective in the face of change: transformational leadership and participative leadership.
The Challenge of Organizational Change
In other for any leadership theory to be effective in the face of organizational change, it has to consider the challenges that change brings about—and one of those challenges is simply knowing why change is important in the first place. As Vedenik and Leber (2015) and note, “managing change is of key importance if companies or organizations want to remain competitive” (p. 584). In other words, companies cannot afford to be static: if they are not moving forward, they are moving backward. However, once a company gets into a groove, so to speak, wherein the methods it employs and the culture it maintains help to breed success for a time, it can become difficult for workers to adjust to a new approach—especially if they are used to and familiar with the process by which they have been working for many years and do not relish the prospect of having to adjust to new ideas in the workplace.
Yet, what worked for a company for a little while may not work forever, which is why change management is so crucial. Leaders have to be able to take stock of their organization, assess what’s working and what isn’t, and make decisions based on the input they receive from stakeholders about moving forward. Change occurs not arbitrarily but because it has to occur “to assist the organization in achieving its goals which cannot be attained with the existing organizational structure, functioning and client servicing, and to minimize the adverse effects of any changes made” (Vedenik & Leber, 2015, p. 585). Kotter (2007) points out that one of the main challenges of organizational change is the resistance that workers can manifest. To overcome resistance to change, leaders have to be ready to meet that resistance and provide the way to neutralize it. In some cases, the leader himself needs to be the source of change. Tobias (2015) describes it this way: “The brutal fact is that about 70% of all change initiatives fail. The failure of leaders to challenge themselves to change, and then model the behavior they seek in others, may be a large contributor to these failures” (p. 35). To model the behavior workers require for embracing change, leaders should be mindful of the theories of leadership that can help make a difference.
Transformational Leadership
The underlying assumption in transformational leadership theory is that a leader is capable of inspiring workers to follow him. The more enthusiastic, passionate and capable of communicating a vision to employees, the more likely the transformational leader is to have a positive impact (Warrick, 2011). According to transformational leadership theory, the leader has to first focus on developing the vision, then communicate the vision, and finally motivate and inspire the workers to embrace the vision. Transformational leaders have to know what change is needed and why—and then they have to be able to explain this to employees using vivid, motivational language that gets the workers to buy into the ideas presented. A leader who lacks this type of ability to harness the energy in the workplace and point it towards the vision of the workplace that is to come is a leader who will have a difficult time leading. Employees want a reason to buy into the change, as Kotter (2007) explains.
In the face of organizational change, transformational leadership is especially effective because the whole idea behind this theory is that it should be utilized to achieve change. The transformational leadership style is applied precisely because the status quo is deemed insufficient for accomplishing the organization’s goals and a transformation is needed in the workers, whether it is in their attitude to work, the processes they use to accomplish their tasks, their tasks in general, or the workplace culture. The transformational leadership style brings a new vision, energy and focus to the workplace to enable workers to overcome whatever resistance they may have.
Participative Leadership
Participative leadership theory focuses on involving others in the decision-making process. This can be especially important in change management as one of Kotter’s (2007) main points for effective change is that leaders have to listen to stakeholders and involve them in the development of the change policy. Participative leaders focus on getting stakeholders involved for all decision-making sequences. The underlying reason for an emphasis on participation is that people tend to be more committed to an action when they feel they have been involved in the deciding. Participative leadership theory also posits that when people are working together to solve issues within an organization they focus more on collaboration and less on themselves or on competition. The collaborative spirit can boost morale and give everyone an intrinsic incentive to reach the organization’s goals. This theory also posits that the more minds working together, the better.
Some participative leaders will give workers more decision-making power than other participative leaders will. There is no exact definition for how much delegating should be done. The main expectation, however, is that individual workers and other stakeholders will be invited to participate in the change planning, implementation and execution. By bringing everyone together as a team, the participator leader helps to eliminate distractions and root out negativity and resistance.
Similarities
Both leadership theories inherently rely upon certain skills that a leader must possess—namely, emotional and social intelligence (Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014), though each theory incorporates them differently. For instance, transformational leaders will use emotional intelligence (EI) to sense how workers are communicating in non-verbal ways and what ideas or information they are not communicating that needs to be brought to the fore in order to address issues among the ranks. A worker might be reluctant to tell a leader about a problem he or she is having with a particular change. A leader skilled in EI will sense that something is wrong and will have the skill to provide the emotional support and encouragement the worker needs to open up.
The same goes for social intelligence (SI). Social intelligence refers to the ability to understand social situations and how individuals relate to one another. A transformational leader will be cognizant of social cues when attempting to instill a change because these cues offer indications of how well the change is being picked up. Warmth in the workplace will indicate enthusiasm for the change. Distance and isolation among the workers will indicate that morale is not where it should be and that frustration is entering into the workplace. The leader skilled in SI will be able to bring the workers together by improving relationships among workers, rallying the troops, bridging generational gaps if needed, and so on.
Transformational leaders will focus on using EI and SI through the force of their personality. This theory’s usefulness in the face of change depends upon a leader that has a strong and attractive personality that followers can get behind. The leader typically displays charisma, positive energy, a driven and focused character, and a deep regard for others. The leader is capable of anticipating, listening, speaking, and inspiring.
Participative leaders will focus on using EI and SI through emphasis on solicitation and inclusion. The participative leader tries to get everyone involved and gives time and space for others to voice their considerations and concerns. The participative leader is just as likely to use EI and SI as the transformative leader, but the participative leader will do so by paying attention to what stakeholders are saying.
Differences
Transformational leadership can fall into certain traps, but so too can participative leaders. Transformational leaders for example will rely on confidence, passion and charisma to such an extent at time that these emotions can be misleading. They can mistakenly assume that these are the only qualities needed to drive change and overcome resistance. Participative leaders on the other hand can make the mistake of thinking that allowing individuals the opportunity to speak is all that is required to lead the way to change. Giving room for others to voice concerns and ideas is important—but so too is actually hearing them and internalizing what they are saying. A participative leader who only listens but then ignores what those around him are offering in terms of input is a leader who is only asking for superficial participation. This will inevitably leave workers feeling raw, embittered and angry: they will despise the leader for only pretending to be interested in what they have to say.
That is why it is important that these two types of leaders be true to their respective styles. Transformational leaders have to be aware of the reality of the situation by implementing their EI and SI skills—and so too do participative leaders. When they do this, they can both be effective. When they fail to do this, they both can lead to catastrophe, just in different ways. Transformational leaders can become too inflated on their own egos and lead an entire organization into a dead end. Participative leaders can fall into the trap of thinking that allowing workers to speak their minds is a mere therapeutic exercise and does not actually mean leaders need to hear them and use their input to shape policy.
Another key difference is that transformational leaders will tend to take responsibility on themselves: they will work with others, motivate them, and communicate with them—but when it comes to delivering the vision and leading the way, they assume control. They recognize themselves as the change agent—the force for change. This can be very helpful when an organization needs a spark, a new source of energy and charisma that can come into the workplace and promote a new culture to boost morale. In some organizations, however, the transformational style can be counter-intuitive. An example would an organization that is used to more democratic styles of leadership. In such a workplace, the participative leadership style would be better placed to effect real change. The workers would respond better to a leader who wants to listen to them and is willing to delegate authority to a team so that the team can make decisions based on input from all.
Conclusion
In conclusion, leadership is a major factor in any organization. Two leadership theories that can help an organization through an organizational change process are transformational leadership and participative leadership. The former is based on the idea that a leader is needed to communicate a vision, inspire workers, and motivate them to better themselves in pursuit of the organizational goals. The latter is based on the idea that by bringing stakeholders and workers together as a team to make decisions about the best way forward, the organization can excel. Both theories require leaders who are skilled in the use of EI and SI, and both theories require leaders to take stock of what stakeholders feel is important so as to overcome resistance. However, neither theory goes about leading in the face of change in the same way. Transformational leaders focus on charisma and confidence-building. Participative leaders focus on inclusivity and getting workers to feel like they are the ones making the decision for change.
References
Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 96–103.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370.
Njoroge, C. N., & Yazdanifard, R. (2014). The impact of social and emotional intelligence on employee motivation in a multigenerational workplace. Global Journal of Management And Business Research, 14(3), 1-7.
Schyns, B. & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138-158.
Tobias, R. M. (2015). Why do so many organizational change efforts fail?. Public Manager, 44(1), 35.
Vedenik, G., & Leber, M. (2015). Change management with the aid of a generic model for restructuring business processes. International Journal of Simulation Modelling (IJSIMM), 14(4), 584–595.
Warrick, D. D. (2011). The urgent need for skilled transformational leaders: Integrating transformational leadership and organization development. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 8(5), 11-26.