Transactional and Transformational Leaders

Leadership and Leadership Theories

Leadership is the process of social influence through which a person can enlist the assistance of others in achieving a shared objective. (Tannenbaum, Weschler & Massarik, 2013). It has the ability to affect people’s actions in order to accomplish a specific goal. Different leadership theories, including transactional, trait, laissez-faire, transformational, and democratic, have been proposed by management experts and academics. (Tannenbaum, Weschler & Massarik, 2013). The report will contrast transactional and transformative leadership philosophies.

Transactional and Transformational Leadership

A boss or leader who practices transactional leadership will use rewards and punishments to influence or motivate their subordinates. (Nahavandi, 2016). It is a traditional way where members are motivated or demotivated by the impact of the rewards or punishments given. Contrary, Transformational leadership is a style in which leaders use charisma and enthusiasm to inspire and influence their followers. As stated by Nahavandi, 2016, transformational leaders try to attain positive results from their members by keeping them motivated and invested in projects, which leads to a high internal morale.

Transactional vs. Transformational Leaders

Transactional leaders are reactive in nature, while transformational leaders are proactive. It means that transactional leaders react to challenges as they arise. They do not have a clear strategy on how to prevent future problems. Transformational leadership addresses issues before they become real problems. They have the conceptual skills of planning the future, with laying down proper mechanisms for prevention (Tannenbaum, Weschler & Massarik, 2013).

Another comparison is that transactional leaders work within the established organizational norms and culture, whereas, transformational leaders put emphasis on new ideas, with the aim of transforming the corporate culture and practice (Nahavandi, 2016). It means that transactional leaders are best suited to a settled environment with no new things. On the other hand, transformational leaders are best suited to a turbulent environment, where creativity and innovation must be applied.

Also, transactional leaders appeal to the self-interest of the followers, who are interested in rewards, while transformational leaders appeal to the group interest and their happiness is as a result of group success. Transactional leaders put their interests first, while the focus of the transformational leaders is in the group interest, and the desire for everyone to achieve.

Finally, transactional leaders are bureaucratic, while transformational leaders are charismatic. Transactional leaders establish a chain of command, where there is a particular leader in a group to give orders and instructions (Tannenbaum, Weschler & Massarik, 2013). Failure to comply or adhere to the instructions provided leads to punishment. On the other hand, transformational leaders believe that every person in a group is a leader. Each day is a learning day and no one who is superior to the other. By the end of the day, every person goes home happy with the feeling of being recognized and acknowledged.

Distinctions between Leaders and Managers

The terms leaders and managers are used interchangeably. However, the two mean entirely different from each other. There are significant distinctions between managers and leaders. They include:

Leaders develop or create a vision, while managers create a goal or an objective. It means that leaders figure out and paints a picture of what they want to see. They use their energies to inspire and engage their followers in turning the vision into reality. Their minds are far beyond what ordinary individuals do. Whereas, managers pay their attention in setting, measuring and achieving given objectives (Rothaermel, 2015). They control the current situation or scenarios to reach their goals.

Another distinction is that leaders are agents for change, while managers maintain a given status quo. In their DNA, leaders are proud disrupters, and they think about how to innovate and do things differently. Their main aim is to embrace change, and they don’t get contented that things are working. They understand that changes into any system or organization create waves. Managers fear the theme of change. Instead, they stick with what is working for them. The single effort they can apply is to refine the systems, processes, or structures to make them more efficient (Rothaermel, 2015).

Leaders are different and unique, while managers are copycats. Leaders believe in themselves, and willing to be original. They are committed to building their differentiated and unique personal brand. They are transparent and authentic. In contrary, managers copy the behaviors they have seen from others. They try to adopt the leadership styles of other people rather than developing their own.

Finally, leaders are risk takers, while managers are risk-averse, that is, they control risk. Leaders are never worried about trying new things. In their mind, they understand that failure is a substantial step to any success. They have long-term goals. Managers work to control or minimize risk. They avoid problems instead of embracing them. They have short-term goals, seeking regular accolades (Nahavandi, 2016). They don’t care much about the future performance of the firm.

Three Components of the Leadership Skill Mix

The leadership skill mix is an essential leadership skills and expertise that every leader requires to have at any level of leadership or management (Johnston & Marshall, 2016). It involves three main categories, which vary on the degree of leadership that a person occupies in a given organization. They include human relation, conceptual skills, and technical expertise.

Human relation skills: They are the skills involved with the power to relate with other people positively, at any management level. An essential human relation skill is communication. Without the know-how to effectively communicate, nothing can be set in motion.

Another skill is the conceptual skills: It is the capacity to understand and interrelate various pieces of information, which seems uncertain, unrelated, or meaningless (Johnston & Marshall, 2016). It is the ability to critically process data and come up with meaningful information that an average person can understand. The skills can be acquired through training, research and development, and through experience.

Lastly, the technical expertise: They vary between departments and levels of control. Apparently, as an individual progress upward on the management ladder, the technical know-how range narrows down. In the operational level of management, workers are more prone to high technical skills application than in the strategic management level.

Downs’ Four Styles of Leader Behavior

Bureaucracy is a hierarchical style of management or leadership. It is the concept where, every official or leader has their superiors, equals, and subordinates. Consequently, this is where the idea of Down’s four leadership style comes in. Downs illustrated and described four types of leadership styles in a bureaucratic administrative system. The behaviors include climber, conservers, the zealots, and the advocates (Rothaermel, 2015).

Climbers are motivated by power, fame, and prestige. They need to invent new functions and strategies to be conducted by their units. In crave for promotion, they seek to aggrandize their current income or office, to find new opportunities above it. They are hungry for power and promotion. Job convenience and security motivate conservers. They completely oppose to losses in their current income, power or prestige (Nahavandi, 2016). They exhibit towards maintaining things under their control.

Zealot is the fourth Down’s style of leadership. These people have narrow desires and interests, and they focus fully on themselves. They are poor general administrators. In fact, they antagonize other individuals within the organization by refusing to be impartial (Nahavandi, 2016). They can never be assigned to high-level command positions within the organization. Finally, the advocates. They promote the control of everything to be under them. They believe to have the jurisdiction over everything. They are highly partisan, but internally, they are impartial arbiters (Nahavandi, 2016).

References

Johnston, M. W., & Marshall, G. W. (2016). Sales force management: Leadership, innovation, technology. Routledge.

Nahavandi, A. (2016). The Art and Science of Leadership -Global Edition. Pearson.

Rothaermel, F. T. (2015). Strategic management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Tannenbaum, R., Weschler, I., & Massarik, F. (2013). Leadership and organization. Routledge.