Comparing Four Leadership Models: Styles and Theories

Introduction

The objective of this paper is to compare and contrast four leadership models and to determine the similarities and differences between them, examining how each model might address contemporary leadership issues and challenges in the workforce. For the purpose of this study, the terms "models" and "theories" are used synonymously. The four leadership models examined are: (1) Transformational; (2) Transactional; (3) Path-Goal Theory; and (4) Action-Centered Leadership.

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership was first conceived by James MacGregor Burns (1978) and was later expanded by Bernard Bass and others. Bass and Steidlmeier, in their work "Ethics, Character and Authentic Transformational Leadership," identify four components of authentic transformational leadership:

(1) Idealized influence; (2) Inspirational motivation; (3) Intellectual stimulation; and (4) Individualized consideration.

These four components stand in contrast, according to Bass and Steidlmeier, to "their counterfeits in the dissembling pseudotransformational leadership on the basis of: (1) the moral character of the leaders and their concerns for self and others; (2) the ethical values embedded in the leaders' vision, articulation, and program, which followers can embrace or reject; and (3) the morality of the processes of social ethical choice and action in which the leaders and followers engage and collectively pursue." (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1998)

Bass and Steidlmeier further note that "the literature on transformational leadership is linked to the long-standing literature on virtue and moral character, as exemplified by Socratic and Confucian typologies," and has also been linked to the major themes "of the modern Western ethical agenda: liberty, utility, and distributive justice." (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1998) There are three pillars upon which the ethics of transformational leadership rest: (1) the moral character of the leader; (2) the ethical values embedded in the leader's vision, articulation, and program, which followers either embrace or reject; and (3) the morality of the processes of social ethical choice and action that leaders and followers engage in and collectively pursue. (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1998)

Transactional Leadership

Transformational leadership has been found to be effective in many settings, including schools, businesses, and even in leading behavioral changes among those who have failed to respond to other styles of leadership. This type of leadership involves inspiring followers to reach beyond their present abilities, gaining new skills and achieving previously unattainable goals. The transformational leader first develops a vision and communicates it to team members, then moves on to selling the vision in a process that enables team members to feel they individually and personally "own" a part of it and that each plays a key role in its achievement. The transformational leader inspires, challenges, and enables the team to move forward toward the vision, while at the same time remaining visible and accessible — setting an example of appropriate behavior by leading through example rather than merely by instruction.

The primary tenets of transactional leadership are that: (1) people are motivated by reward and punishment; (2) social systems work best with a clear chain of command; (3) when people have agreed to do a job, part of the deal is that they cede all authority to their manager; and (4) the prime purpose of a subordinate is to do what their manager tells them to do. (Transactional Leadership, n.d.)

Conclusion

While there are similarities across the different styles of leadership, the premise of each is based on different theoretical assumptions about behavior and motivation. Transformational leadership is a style that motivates, communicates, inspires, and provides support and direction in an interactive manner characterized by leadership by example. Transactional leadership is based primarily on contingency and reward management and is, in reality, more akin to management than to leadership — operating within a system that views the leader as superior and followers as subordinate. There is very little democracy or empowerment of the individual employee in this style of leadership, which rests on the assumption that individuals are motivated by rewards and punishments.

The Path-Goal theory of leadership similarly views the leader as superior to subordinate followers. Within its theoretical framework, it is the responsibility of the leader to establish the path necessary to reach the organization's goals and to enable subordinates along that path through the removal of barriers and the provision of tools and guidance for traversing it toward the ultimate goal.

Finally, Action-Centered Leadership is a style that contains defined core actions with subtasks that must be accomplished in reaching the goal. The successful realization of goals depends upon following the action guidance set forth by the leader for team members, who are empowered through proper training and development. This style of leadership focuses on the ultimate development of the autonomy and authority of individual team members, preparing them ultimately to step into leadership roles themselves.