This paper examines the distinctions between leadership and management through analysis of major theoretical models, particularly transactional and transformational leadership approaches. While these terms are often used interchangeably, the paper demonstrates that leaders typically exhibit visionary, inspiring, and humble qualities, whereas managers are generally more administrative and organized. The analysis covers transactional management approaches including contingent reward theory, management by exception, and laissez-faire leadership, contrasting these with transformational leadership's four principal factors: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. The paper concludes that effectiveness depends significantly on organizational context, with the best leaders and managers adapting their strategies to environmental demands.
Leadership is a difficult topic to study, and there have been no fewer than six to eight major approaches that have emerged within academia, plus countless more from outside (Turner & Muller, 2005; Kilburg & Donohue, 2011). Many popular theories include leadership models such as trait theory, situational theory, behavioral theory, competencies theory, and network theory of leadership. However, transformational leadership appears to do the best job of contrasting a popular conception of the differences between a leader and a manager, or between a transformational leader and a transactional leader. The transformational leadership model is commonly contrasted specifically with the transactional model, which is considered more akin to a managerial role as opposed to leadership.
Globalization is one of the trends working to redefine many of the leadership roles being studied today (Toor & Ofori, 2008). The global market adds complexity and uncertainty to the modern business environment, and today's leaders must be more conscientious than ever before and embrace change. Leadership must also guide organizational changes and help shape a culture of learning. Since the skills required by employees to maintain competitive advantage have become more dynamic in the wake of globalization, establishing a culture of learning represents the best position for achieving competitiveness (Alipour, et al., 2011).
One view of management considers the relationship between managers and the group of people for whom they are responsible within the organization. These power relationships are generally defined by a group making decisions at different levels based on their own self-interests. The management role is viewed as monitoring, controlling, and motivating employees through economic incentives and other exchange incentives (Bass, 1985). Management is viewed as a functioning set of self-interests and job functions that ensure tasks are completed.
Several different categories of management have developed from this perspective. One model is referred to as the contingent reward theory, in which a leader provides extrinsic motivation—usually monetary—in exchange for performance in their roles. Managers help facilitate the exchange values that drive the company's operations. These exchanges allow leaders to accomplish their performance objectives, complete required tasks, maintain the current organizational situation, motivate followers through contractual agreement, direct follower behavior toward achievement of established goals, emphasize extrinsic rewards, avoid unnecessary risks, and focus on improving organizational efficiency (McClesky, 2014). This can be an effective model, especially for low-level positions that do not require substantial skill or training.
Management by exception also falls within the realm of the transactional model. This model involves a manager monitoring performance, looking for exceptions in organizational performance, and taking corrective action when necessary. Basically, management will monitor the organization for which they are responsible, looking for things that do not meet expectations. Exception reporting is probably based on the notion that only variances—both unfavorable and favorable—should attract managerial attention, particularly if they are assessed as being significant (Brownell, 1983).
Management by exception can be conducted with minimal intervention and focuses only on issues that fall outside what a company deems as standard. This type of management is considered effective in organizations where management oversees a large number of employees. When a manager oversees a large group, they can only give selective attention to the individual efforts of employees. The manager in this scenario will constantly monitor for any deviations in performance metrics and take corrective action when necessary to keep the organization moving toward its operational goals.
Another form of transactional management is known as laissez-faire leadership. A laissez-faire manager will avoid decisions, delay actions, and ignore responsibilities (Bass, 1998). Laissez-faire managers are easily perceived in a negative light. However, sometimes when there is a highly qualified and motivated staff, this approach could actually be beneficial. However, this is not always the case. For example, many managers are promoted on seniority or for reasons other than competence and can be viewed as a destructive force by other employees. Furthermore, destructive forms of leadership seem to be better predictors of job satisfaction than constructive forms of leadership (Skogstad, et al., 2014).
Transformational leadership is often contrasted with the characteristics and attributes of transactional leadership (Judge & Bono, 2000). A transactional leader can be viewed as a manager without the motivational aspects found in other models. This contrasts with a transformational leader, who can stimulate the moral values of employees beyond the transactional or contractual agreements. A transformational leader can transform the self-interested personal goals of organizational members into collective organizational goals. Transformational leaders and their models have been associated with effective organizational change because this type of leadership can better navigate uncertainty and work well in dynamic environments.
Organizational members inspired by the vision set out by a transformational leader are likely to devote greater energy to their work. Later models of transformational leadership dismissed the idea of building moral commitment and simply require that a leader motivates followers to do their best, sets challenging expectations, and thus achieves higher performance. These models were further refined, and the definition of transformational leadership was condensed to the leader's ability to inspire organizational members to move beyond their immediate self-interests (Bass, 1985).
There are four principal factors through which a transformational leader can build motivation in an organization. The first is referred to as idealized influence. Idealized influence refers to the leader's ability to fulfill a perception of what an ideal leader would do in the role. Leaders can fulfill these roles by showing a high level of dedication, a sense of purpose, and resolution to succeed. Transformational leaders can also motivate individuals by creating what is referred to as inspirational motivation. Inspirational motivation is a concept that considers a leader's ability to set the vision or inspire people to think more forward-looking. These visions are most effective when they are enthusiastic, optimistic, and highly committed to organizational goals.
Another factor included in the transformational leadership model is intellectual stimulation. Intellectual stimulation refers to the ability to encourage organizational members to think creatively, and employees who are intellectually involved have been shown to give higher performance compared to those who are uninterested. The final category of motivation in the transformational leadership model is individualized consideration. When the leader gives high amounts of individualized consideration to team members, this can help motivate them to better achieve organizational goals. For example, when team members receive substantial personal attention, they can become more engaged in organizational objectives and strategies, building a sense of inclusion and dedication to the team.
The transformational leadership model has been argued to be effective in many situations, and with the model's popularity, some researchers looked to dispositional traits to see if these would be predictors of transformational leadership. One study found that personality traits such as conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness can help predict the potential for transformational leadership in a leader (Ross & Offerman, 1997). Furthermore, this also helped predict individual and organizational outcomes such as leader effectiveness, team performance, subordinate individual performance, job satisfaction of subordinates, and organizational commitment (Lim & Ployhart, 2004).
Some have argued that transformational leadership is the most effective model of all those that have been presented (Judge & Bono, 2000). A transformational leader can be exemplified by their capacity to create inspirational visions among team members, which affects them in such a way that they aspire to meet their full potential. One way a transformational leader can create this type of motivation is by setting challenging expectations that will stimulate employees and lead them to try to achieve higher performance (Bass, 1999). This form of leadership goes beyond the exchange nature of a transactional leader and is able to provide motivation in different ways. One study using a purposive sample of 1,200 employees confirmed that transformational and transactional leadership and knowledge management processes positively predicted rational decision making in an organizational setting (Riaz, Khalili, & Pakistan, 2014).
The transactional leadership and transformational leadership models were presented and compared to show different perspectives on the differences between management and leadership. However, in the real world, both managers and leaders often have a range of different leadership traits and tactics. A transformational leader could potentially be a manager in a different environment. For example, if an environment or cause inspired a manager, they could become transformational temporarily. Thus, there is something of a dynamic nature to both leadership and management.
Furthermore, different approaches to leadership and management can also depend on the environment. For example, a management-by-exception leader could be entirely effective in a large factory while being ineffective in a software development scenario. The best leaders and managers will change their strategies to the best of their abilities to customize an approach that fits the environment. Therefore, it is necessary to be acquainted with a range of leadership and management models so that a leader or manager can adjust their approaches based on findings from different models.
Alipour, F., K., I., & Karimi, R. (2011). Knowledge creation and transfer: Role of learning organization. International Journal of Business Administration, 2(3), 61–67.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
Bass, B. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Erlbaum.
Bass, B. (1999). Two decades in research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9–32.
Brownell, P. (1983). The motivational impact of management-by-exception in a budgetary context. Journal of Accounting Research, 21, 456–472.
Judge, J., & Bono, J. (2000). Five factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751–765.
Kilburg, R., & Donohue, M. (2011). Toward a "grand unifying theory" of leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal, 63, 6–25.
Lim, B., & Ployhart, R. (2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to five factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 610–621.
McClesky, J. (2014). Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership and leadership development. Journal of Business Quarterly Studies, 2, 117–130.
Riaz, M., Khalili, M., & Pakistan, I. (2014). Transformational, transactional leadership and rational decision making in services providing organizations: Moderating role of knowledge management processes. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Science, 8, 355–364.
Ross, S., & Offerman, L. (1997). Transformational leadership: Measurement of personality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1078–1094.
"How context shapes leadership model effectiveness and adaptation"
You’re 95% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.