It has been suggested further that the transformational leadership is a special type of transactional leadership because both leaderships are goal oriented. The difference comes from the way methods used to motivate people and the goal sets (Hater & Bass, 1988). Thus, one model is based on the leader's power to inspire followers and the other is based on the leader's creativity regarding the reward system. The goals are usually higher for the first type of leadership, whereas for the second type the goals are more operational. Avolio (1999) suggested that transformational leadership comes to augment the transformational one. However, in order to define rewards a transactional leader needs to know its followers, which suggests that transactional leaders have to display interest for their followers to some extent.
Transformational leadership vs. servant leadership
TABLE 2 - MODEL for TRANSFORMATIONAL & SERVANT LEADERSHIP FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES
Commitment to goals
Source: Russel & Stone (2002)
Recent leadership studies have brought to attention spiritual leadership (Fairholm, 1996), comparing the value-based transformational leadership with the servant one (Burns, 1978; Fairholm, 1991 & 1994). Some of the characteristics of this type of leadership relate to: sharing meaning, shared values, vision setting, intuition, risk taking, influence and power, enabling, service/servant hood, stewardship, transformation and community (Fairholm, 1996).
A study made by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) identified five dimensions of servant leadership and a significant relation was found between these dimensions and transformational leadership:
Altruistic calling - refers to those leaders that put other people's interest above their own. The choice to do so is a conscious one and comes from a selfless way of thinking.
Emotional healing - refers to a leader's ability to heal individuals around him/her and create a safe work environment for its followers.
Persuasive mapping - refers to the leader's ability to envision given directions/frameworks for the organization in its future and the ability to engage others in its vision. Such leaders encourage followers to assume responsibilities that would eventually lead to reaching the envisioned goals.
Wisdom - pays respect to the ability of identifying potential cues from environment and people and the ability to see the possible implications of such cues.
Organizational stewardship - pays respect to the leader's choice of giving back to a greater entity such as the community through organizational efforts.
The tendency is for the transformational leadership to borrow some of the characteristics of servant leadership, basically blending those two types of leadership. Transformational leadership scores better from the leader's and organization's perspective, whereas the servant one is more appreciated by followers.
Transactional leadership vs. servant leadership
TABLE 3 - TRANSACTIIONAL & SERVANT LEADERSHIP
The transactional leader has a personal drive for achievement
The servant leader is driven by serving others
The transactional leader is independent and competitive
The servant leader is interdependent and collaborative
The transactional leader is using its position/power and fear to influence followers
The servant leader is using trust and respect to influence followers
The transactional leader is focused on telling other what to do and action
The servant leader is focused on understanding issues and reflecting rather than action
The transactional leader control information
The servant leader is sharing the information he/she has
The transactional leader gives directions and develops itself
The servant leader helps other develop and grow
The transactional leader uses accountability to place blame
The servant leader uses accountability to learn
Focus on results
Focus on people
Use reward to motivate
Inspire people to reach a higher goal
Source: Author's own research, http://www.changezone.co.uk/
Transactional leadership is focused on organizational goals, material results and the leader is the central piece in the leader-follower relationship. Transactional leaders are more focus on their own development, rather than the followers' development.
Servant leadership is focused on the followers' growth and development and the followers are the central piece in the leader-follower relationship. Servant leaders consider that other people's development and needs are more important than its own, which means that he/she is focused less on its own development than that of the followers. The servant leader is trying to transform followers in a given direction. he/she is trying to make people be stronger, wiser, more independent and more likely to become servant leaders at their turn (Greenleaf, 1977).
Spears (1995) suggested that leaders become servants in time as they gradually lose self-interest and become more focused on other people.
Probably the most common type of leadership is the transactional one and the most desired one by followers is the servant one. Transformational leadership mixes together characteristics of both these type of leadership and by doing so, it receives a great deal of attention from researchers.
Transactional leadership is using rewards to determine people to perform certain tasks. The leader-follower relationship lasts as long as both parties have an interest in continuing it and it ends one the interest disappears.
Transformational leadership is using the leader's skills to inspire, develop and transform people to better in order to achieve organizational goals. The leader-follower relationship is a long-term one and it may last even after the parties' business related relation ends.
Servant leadership is using the leader's skills to inspire, develop and transform people just like the transformational one, but its goals are people-related rather than organizational. Servant leaders focus on people and their growth, whereas the end goal of the transformational ones is organizational-related.
Many authors have suggested that the transformational leadership has come as a completion of the transactional one and after a deeper analysis it can be seen that the transformational and servant ones are very similar. The three leadership types are not mutually excluding each other. In fact, a good leader is assumed to display characteristics from all these types. he/she needs to focus both on people and organizational goals because people are not his/her only "clients." Shareholders and customers enter in this category as well, which makes organizational goals important. A good leader should know what is the right mix of rewards and when to use the reward system and when not, because the excessive use of rewards inhibits the follower's loyalty and increases the probability for it to leave the organization. Also, it should know what the right attention that needs to be paid to its own development is, so that this one doesn't become detrimental to other people's development.
Avolio, B.J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D., & Yammarino, F.J. (1991). Leading in the 1990's: The four I's of transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 15(4): pp. 9-16.
Barbuto, J.E., Jr., & Wheeler, D.W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, vol. 31(3): pp. 1- 27.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (eds.) (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training vol.14: pp. 21-27.
Bryman, a. 1992. Charisma & leadership in organizations. Sage Publications: Newbury Park, C.A.
Burgenhagen, M.J. (2006). Antecedents of transactional, transformational and servant leadership: a constructive-development theory. PhD dissertation: University of Nebraska.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. NY: Harper & Row.
Fairholm, G.W. (1996). Spiritual leadership: Fulfilling whole-self needs at work. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, vol.17(5): pp. 11.
Fairholm, G.W. (1994). Leadership and the culture of trust. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Fairholm, G.W. (1991). Values leadership: Toward a new philosophy of leadership. New York, NY: Praeger.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1998). The power of servant leadership. San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, in: Greenleaf Center.
Hater, J. & Bass, B. Superiors' evaluation and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 73: pp. 695-702.
Landy, F.J. (1989). Psychology of work behavior. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
McMinn, D.L. (1989). The conceptualization and perception of biblical servant leadership in the southern Baptist convention. Digital Dissertations, 3007038.
Russell, C.J., & Stone, a.G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, vol. 23(3/4): pp. 145-157.
Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, vol. 9(2): pp. 57-64.
Spears, L.C. (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of servant-leadership influenced today's top management thinkers. New York: John Wiley.
Stone, G.A., Russell, R.F., &…
However, in order to define rewards a transactional leader needs to know its followers, which suggests that transactional leaders have to display interest for their followers to some extent.
Leadership Style Book Review: Summary of Book "Blessed are the flexible, for they shall not be broken," reads the quotation on the title page of 17 Essential Qualities of a Team Leader: Becoming the Kind of Person Every Team Wants, by management guru John C. Maxwell. The word 'leadership' on its own often brings to mind rather stultifying and outdated modalities of leading by command, much like a general, or cliches
Leadership Style of Meg Whitman Meg Whitman is the Chief Executive Officer at Hewlett-Packard (HP). This is a computer manufacturing firm based in California, USA. She started working at Hewlett Packard way back in 1989, but it is from the year 2009 that she became the CEO of this company. During her youth, she attended Harvard Business School where she got the true learning about leadership. Outside the business field, she
Furthermore, there are a number of similarities and overlaps between such leadership theories that do not prevent their being characterized as transformational in nature. For example, "Most leaders behave in both transactional and transformational ways in different intensities and amounts; this is not an entirely either-or differentiation" (Miner, 2002 p. 743). One of the more interesting issues to emerge from the research is the need for transformational leaders to teach
As a result, economic development was redefined in terms of reduction or elimination of poverty, inequality, and unemployment within the perspective of a growing economy (Mamede & Davidsson, 2003). Research indicates that entreprenuership can be both the cause and effect of economic development in the sense of wealth distribution. Countries in which wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small fraction of the population face greater difficulties in coordinating
Leadership philosophy denotes the values, beliefs, and principles that define or influence how a leader leads their followers. There are many different leadership philosophies, but one philosophy that particularly resonates with the author’s leadership philosophy is servant leadership. Servant leadership is about serving others and prioritising the needs of others. As demonstrated in this paper, servant leadership is a leadership philosophy that is applicable at the workplace as well as
At the turn of the 21st century, Anne Mulcahy was recognized as a strong leader with good organizational skills. She quickly proved just how capable she was when, after being appointed CEO of Xerox in 2001, she implemented a “strategy of relentless cost-cutting, organizational focus, and boosted innovation” (Manville, 2016). I selected Mulcahy because of her recognition in 2008 as CEO of the year by Chief Executive magazine, because of