This paper examines transformational and servant leadership as interconnected frameworks for effective organizational management. It contrasts these approaches with transactional and situational leadership, arguing that styles emphasizing follower engagement, empathy, and shared vision produce greater loyalty and organizational health. The paper discusses key leadership traits — including empathy, diplomacy, the ability to rally followers, and the willingness to admit mistakes — and applies these concepts to a specific organizational case in which a servant leader has achieved low turnover and high follower satisfaction. The paper also addresses the balance leaders must maintain between camaraderie and authority, and the importance of aligning personal values with an organization's mission, vision, and strategy.
The paper demonstrates applied theoretical analysis: it introduces established leadership frameworks (citing Miner, Tittemore, and others), explains their mechanics, and then evaluates a real-world case against those frameworks. This technique — theory → explanation → application → recommendation — is a reliable structure for management and organizational behavior essays at the undergraduate level.
The paper opens by surveying leadership diversity and advocating for transformational approaches, then narrows to servant leadership and its contrast with situational leadership. It next catalogs specific leader traits (empathy, rallying followers, diplomacy) before addressing the authority-friendship boundary and mission alignment. The final sections apply all prior concepts to a described organization, closing with a discussion of authenticity and the leader's willingness to acknowledge mistakes.
There are many different concepts of leadership, and much of what a person does as a leader is related to the concept to which that person subscribes. Some leaders are more interested in their followers than others, while other leaders are more focused on what they can do for the company and the bottom line. Neither option is necessarily the right one, because there are many ways in which leadership can be effective (Benson, 1994). However, for the majority of companies, a leadership style that is transformational in nature and geared toward stewardship is the best option. People who are being led want to see that they are part of something bigger and that they have value to contribute to the organization of which they are a part. If they do not feel as though they are receiving anything meaningful in return for the work they provide, they will become dissatisfied with their jobs and may look elsewhere for employment satisfaction.
Being a good leader is more than simply telling people what to do and giving them a paycheck for doing it. Being a good leader means becoming a part of the organization and helping followers to feel as though they, too, are a part of that organization — everyone working together for the common good.
Transformational leadership is one of the most innovative concepts in organizational management. It may seem simple in nature, but it is actually very complex because it requires the leader and the followers to work together as a genuine team. Leaders are not truly leaders if no one wants to follow them. They may still be in charge, but that is vastly different from being a true leader. When a true leader operates a company, the people who work for that company are valued. They know their place, but they also know that they will be treated as human beings. They may have good ideas to share with their leader, and they will not be afraid to do so. People in this type of leadership environment can also discuss problems and concerns respectfully and without anyone being treated inappropriately or unfairly. Leaders who recognize the value of transformational leadership are able to accomplish much more with a company than a transactional or situational leader.
Within the scope of transformational leadership lies the concept of servant leadership. While this kind of leadership is often rooted in Christian principles, that does not have to be the case. Servant leadership is a stewardship style in which the leader and the followers work together to make the company something better than it was before. This is the opposite of situational leadership, where the leader is firmly in charge and each situation is addressed as it arises, rather than working to prevent those situations entirely (Blank, Weitzel, & Green, 1990). Situational leadership involves moving from one problem, crisis, or issue to another in a reactive cycle, and it lacks the smooth continuity of servant leadership. When someone becomes a servant leader, he or she is focused on the bigger picture and on how everyone in the company fits into that picture. Problems can still arise, of course, because that is the nature of business. However, when a servant leader identifies a problem, he or she brings the followers together and they collectively decide what to do about it. A situational leader, by contrast, is more likely to react to the situation by making a decision independently and then informing followers of that decision and what they are expected to do. Neither leadership style is inherently bad, but the servant leadership style is more inclusive and welcoming.
When followers are receptive to what a leader is offering, that leader knows he or she is doing something correctly (Van Wormer, Besthorn, & Keefe, 2007). In many organizations, a great deal of power is exerted through the leader, and followers are very interested in what that leader has to say and offer — both individually and for the company as a whole. Even when a leader holds considerable power, understanding the value of using it wisely — without making a show of it — is one of the main reasons such leaders earn the respect of their organizations. Low turnover in a department is often a direct result of this approach, because people feel welcome and are not motivated to transfer elsewhere. They may earn more pay somewhere else, but they are skeptical that they could find the same degree of camaraderie and respectful treatment — and that is worth more to them than a raise.
An effective team leader will have specific traits and characteristics that are readily observable. One of the most important is empathy. When a leader has empathy, he or she is able to genuinely understand what another person is experiencing. That is an important trait in any area of life, but it is especially significant in leadership, because being a good servant leader means working as a team with one's followers. Without empathy and an understanding of what others are going through, teamwork becomes more complicated and difficult. That is not to say that people facing personal difficulties should be given a free pass, but only that it is human to experience problems, and transformational leaders seek to bring that human element into their work with others. Without humanity, working with other people becomes mundane and uninspiring, and a leader can be perceived as uncaring and unfeeling (Miner, 2005) — neither of which inspires willing followership.
Another essential trait is the ability to rally followers. Leaders need to be able to get those who follow them to stand behind their decisions and support the direction the organization is taking (Benson, 1994). If a leader makes decisions unilaterally without consulting followers, that leader may not earn the same level of respect and appreciation as one who regularly seeks input. People who function as followers need to feel as though they are part of something bigger. Leaders who can create that sense of belonging will gain their followers' trust and loyalty. It may not happen immediately, but once a pattern of consistency is established, followers will begin to trust that their leader does not mean them harm. Leaders who are genuinely committed to improving conditions for their followers and advancing the organization are a relatively rare breed, but they are becoming more common as companies recognize how transformational leaders motivate and retain their people.
Many organizations blend transformational and transactional leadership styles (Miner, 2005; Tittemore, 2003). This is especially true in larger organizations with multiple chains of command. Department leaders who work closely with employee groups, for example, may lean heavily toward transformational leadership because their work requires ongoing attention to what employees think and need. Higher management, spending less time in direct collaboration, may operate more transactionally — making decisions with less input from a broad group and expecting those decisions to be carried out. Overall, management can function effectively under either style, and a blend of both can work very well depending on the type of organization and its people (Tittemore, 2003).
You’re 47% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 4 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.