Coursework Header Sheet

209061-15 

                 

Course BUSI1413: Ldrshp,Per Dev,Career Mnt(MBA)

Course School/Level BU/PG

Coursework Essay Assessment Weight 50.00%

Tutor P Stoneman Submission Deadline

16/12/2013

Coursework is receipted on the understanding that it is the student's own work and that it has not, in whole or part, been presented elsewhere for assessment. Where material has been used from other sources it has been properly acknowledged in accordance with the University's Regulations regarding Cheating and Plagiarism.

000805729                          Tutor's comments                                    

   Grade Awarded___________

For Office Use Only__________

Final Grade_________

Moderation required: yes/no Tutor______________________ Date

_______________

“For every theory there is a counter argument. What are the criticisms

and arguments against Transformational Leadership? Identify the

sources and clearly articulate the reasoning behind the criticisms.

Adopt a position for or against Transformational Leadership and defend

your position with argument”

This is an age of team work. No leader leads without the followers,

there’s an exchange of power in today’s leadership role between

leaders and followers (D'ambrosio, 2013).

The concept of leadership is often confused with management but, there

is a huge difference between both of them (Boehnke et al, 2003).

“Management is only concerned with getting the things done through

traditional methods of planning, organizing, monitoring and

controlling” (Boehnke et al, 2003) while leadership focuses on

people’s thinking correlated with the environment of the entity and to

the job.

Over the past couple of decades leadership behaviors are widely

researched topic in variety of disciplines. Many theories have an

emphasis on rational processes like, task oriented or goal oriented

leaders whereas, the new theories have emphasized on emotions and

values which are proven to be effective leadership styles (Yukl,

1999).

Among all the theories, Transformational leadership theory provides

distinct insights about the nature of effective leadership but, it has

a conceptual weakness. This essay discusses the criticisms of the

theory with an empirical assessment on each criticism or an argument.

Two-factor leadership model

Burns (1978) introduced the notion of transactional and

transformational leadership. Transactional leadership is explained

with an involvement of cost benefit between the leader and the

follower such as performance ratings, pay, recognition and praise.

Such a relationship depends on hierarchical organizational structure

and the ability to work through this mode of exchange.

On the other hand, Theory of Transformational leadership is an

expansion of transactional leadership theory with its emphasis on

“intrinsic motivation and positive development of the followers” (Bass

& Riggio, 2006).

According to Bass & Riggio (2006) “Transformational leadership

involves Inspiring followers to commit to the shared vision and goals

for an organization or unit, challenging them to be innovative problem

solvers and developing followers leadership capacity via coaching,

mentoring and provision of both challenge and support” (p.4). This

theory of transformational leadership tends to be the most appropriate

leadership theory for leading today’s complex work groups &

organizations. A transformational leader is focused on making a better

tomorrow, creating a vision, bringing authenticity in mission,

maintaining integrity, adapting to growth mindset, embracing

individuality in the followers and promoting creativity (Wedell, et al

2012).

Research on transformational leadership and related charismatic

approaches have been a centre of interest for the researchers,

scholars and students of leadership. Is transformational leadership

theory exaggerated than its actual benefits? Is transformational

leadership an better approach than other leadership styles?

Normative vs descriptive

The greatest charge against the theory is by Marturano, Gosling & wood

(2004) citing transformational leadership is more of normative

(ideal, prescriptive & value laden) assertion and not an descriptive

(factual & verifiable) assertion. Transformational leadership tells

you “how a leadership ought to be” whereas, transactional leadership

is descriptive in nature “How leadership does”.

Furthermore, Marturano (2004) mentions that Burns approach of

transformational leadership is about “being a morally good leader”,

this theory can describe the values but, not in true valuations.

For instance, Adolf Hitler though he was not a social person, “he had

a mission and the determination to convince the world of that mission”

(Rees, 2012, p.1), he was a charismatic orator, his charisma proved

when the Loss in world war1 and defeat in elections of 1928

strengthened his conviction (Rees, 2012).

Furthermore, his never decreasing self-confidence made him win the

elections in 1929 when a depression hit the country. Many historians

see him as charismatic leader, “The exceptional communication skills

(thoughts linger in people’s mind for a lasting impact), application

of wisdom in an appropriate way, compassion and integrity towards the

mission” (Rees, 2012, p.1) are the major characteristics identified in

Hitler.

Marturano (2004) cited in his journal article that the distinction

between descriptive versus normative notions of leadership allows to

affirm that Hitler was a successful leader from a merely descriptive

point of view while, he is not a “morally good” from a normative point

of view.

Group perspective vs dyadic relationship

Critics have also decried on one of the component “individualized

consideration” involving close, continuous and frequent communication

with the followers to maintain a personal touch (Czaja, 2013). Yukl

(1999) states that this component underestimates the group perspective

and relies more on a dyadic relationship between the leader and the

follower whereas, leader influence should be on how well group

activities are coordinated, the extent to which members trust each

other and co-operate in accomplishing the task objectives.

Circumstances vs leadership style

“It is an advantage for organizations that select leaders with the

style that has the optimum chance for success in their organization”

(Alvesson, 2002, p.1). Alvesson (2002) criticizes that

Transformational leadership is negatively co-related with hierarchical

environment (Where focus is on centralized management

control).Transformational leaders tend to become frustrated with the

emphasis on following rules and may not become an effective leader to

the team (Avolio and Bass, 1995).

On the other hand, Organizations with clan and adhocracy cultures

should have a combination of both transactional and transformational

leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1995).For instance, In an organization

where, achieving target sales is priority, a leader who pushes the

follower towards the target attaching an incentive and a leader who

encourages the follower to present the product in a innovative way,

both play

an important role.

Another critic (Yukl, 1999) also doesn’t agree with the assumption

that transformational leadership is prevalent in all organizations

since, the research conducted by Yulk suggests “that various leaders

use different behaviors in different circumstances which can be

either transactional or transformational (p.38)”.

Burns (1956) noted that Franklin D Roosevelt- 32nd president of USA

(1933 -1945) was a “Transactional experimentalist as well as

charismatic with principles, On becoming president, the electorate

was moved from deep economic depression to feelings of hope &

expectation, He succeeded in putting into place many remedial

programs ranging from rural electrification to social security ”(Bass

& Riggio, 2006, p.82).

Later on, when war broke in 1939 and Britain had approached America

for military goods since, it was Bankrupt. Mr.Franklin tried taking as

many transactional manipulative steps as possible.

Though, Britain would not be able to purchase them, United states

would sell them, He initiated a lend-lease program where, he asked for

Bahamas, Bermuda and other British colonies in exchange of military

goods. And since, this deal was made on off-shore basis, the colonies

were never returned back to Britain. So, though Mr.Franklin was

transformational in approach, Situations had made him Transactional

which can be identified in many great leaders.

Dubious measurement tool

Yukl (1999) elaborately criticized on the measurement tool proposed by

Bass (1978). “MLQ (Multi-factor leadership questionnaire) assess full

range of leadership, it includes all the components of transactional,

transformational and laissez-faire leadership namely, management-by-

exception (both active & passive forms), and contingent reward, as

well components of transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 2006,

p.19)”. “The MLQ rater form requires the associates of the leaders to

rate the frequency of their leader’s transactional and

transformational leadership behavior using 5-point rating scale (Bass

& Avolio, 2006, p.20)”. MLQ has been revised from meta-analysis

(another tool of leadership measurement) adding more factors for

analyzing the leadership behavior.

Though, MLQ has expanded the range of leadership behaviors Yukl (1999)

expresses that the questionnaire still lacks several aspects like task

behavior (e.g. clarifying, planning), some relations behavior (e.g.

team building, team networking) and some change oriented behavior

(scanning and analysis of external environment, strategy

reformulation, reorganization to support a new strategy).

Yukl (1999) also observes that MLQ fails to add the factors of

charisma in questionnaire like, expressive communicator, influential

personality, inspiring orator and impression management. As a whole,

MLQ has omitted major factors which can determine the effective

leadership so; MLQ should be constantly revisited for better approach

of a research. Furthermore, Yukl (1999) cites that descriptive

research using observation and interviews to study transformational

leadership in managers found that they were not charismatic in the

usual sense of the word.

“The managers of successful teams and effective organizations were

seldom viewed as superhuman by subordinates or peers. With a few

exceptions, they were not colorful, larger than life figures who made

spellbinding speeches and used nontraditional behaviors to manage

impressions” (Yukl, 1999, p.37).

TL theory- conceptually flawed

The four components (idealized influence, inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration) of

transformational leadership are asserted as not “sufficiently

distinctive to facilitate a meaningful separation” (Northouse, 2007,

p.2) among the components.

Yukl (1999) further criticizes the lack of quantitative and

qualitative assessment amongst the components by relating them to

“arousal of motives or emotions, increased self-efficacy or optimism

and increased task commitment” (p.40) in the followers.

Bryman (2004) expands on this criticism by stating that it is vital

to have a proven link between charismatic (idealized influence)

leadership and its influence on the followers. The influence can be

quantified by the change in behavior patterns of the followers which

commensurate with the leader’s overall objectives.

Conclusion

Finally, transformational leadership theory is also claimed to be

“placing disproportionate emphasis on the ‘heroic’ aspects of

leadership” (Northouse, 2007, p.3). However, “the negative aspects of

transformational and charismatic leadership largely occur when the

leadership is inauthentic and personalized, rather than socialized

(Bass & Riggio, 2006, p.235)”.

Many counter arguments have risen with the empirical studies for each

criticism. Bass has countered those who questioned the validity of

MLQ factors with the inconsistent research done by Tejada. Tejada’s

research used heterogeneous sample of leaders from different cultures

and organizational levels whereas, the MLQ & FRL were evaluated by

using 3368 hypothesis techniques which proves the validity of MLQ

regime (Bass, 2006).

To conclude, Transformational leadership as a theory is open to

criticisms as, any skeptical mind would pick holes in a theoretical

construct whereas, bringing up with water tight proofs similar to

natural sciences is difficult. It is the display of sheer

professional jealousy by certain contemporaries who undermine the

conceptual credibility of transformational leadership theory (Bryman,

2004).

Bibliography

- Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding Organizational Culture.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cited in Leon, J (2010)

Leadership styles in competing organizational cultures [online].

Claremont:Mc kenna college. Available from:

http://www.leadershipreview.org/2010summer/article3_summer_2010.a

sp [accessed on 15 December 2013]

- Bass, B. and Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership. 2nd

ed. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

- Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond

expectations. New York: Free Press. Cited in: Yukl, G. (1999). An

Evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership.

European journal of work and organizational psychology, 8(1),

pp.33-48 [online]. Available

fromhttp://www.docsinbox.net/MGT5830/Yuklleadership.pdf [Accessed

8th December 2013].

- Bryman, A. (2004). Qualitative research on leadership: a critical

but appreciative review‟. Leadership Quarterly, 15 (6), pp.729-

769. Cited in Reid, M. (2008). A critique of transformational

leadership theory. pp. 1-7 [online]. Available from:

http://www.academia.edu/300040/A_critique_of_Transformational_Lea

dership_theory [Accessed 8th December 2013].

- Czaja, J. (2013). The trouble with transformational leadership

[online]. Available from: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/trouble-

transformational-leadership-21793.html [Accessed 8th December

2013]

- D'ambrosio, M. 2013. Leadership in Today's World. [online].

Stanswartz, Available at:

http://www.stanswartz.com/DAMBROSIO.htm   [accessed on 15

December 2013].

- Leon, J (2010) Leadership styles in competing organizational

cultures [online]. Claremont:Mc kenna college. Available from:

http://www.leadershipreview.org/2010summer/article3_summer_2010.a

sp [accessed on 15 December 2013]

- Marturano, A. (2004). Transformational and transactional

leadership: A critique. 3 rd Leadership workshop, pp.15-16

[online]. Available from

http://business-school.exeter.ac.uk/research/areas/topics/leaders

hip/outputs/publication/?id=71 [Accessed 8th December 2013]

- Northouse, P.G., (2007). Leadership: theory and practice (4th

edition), Sage Publications cited in: Mark reid (2008). A

critique of transformational leadership theory. pp. 1-7 [online].

[accessed 8th December 2013].

- Reid, M. (2008). A critique of transformational leadership

theory. pp. 1-7 [online]. Available from:

http://www.academia.edu/300040/A_critique_of_Transformational_Lea

dership_theory [accessed 8th December 2013].

- Rees, L. (2012). What made Adolf Hitler a Charismatic leader?

[online]. London: Maastricht university. Available from:

http://www.talkinbusiness.net/2012/10/charismatic-leadership

[Accessed on 15 December 2013]

- Tejeda, M.J., Scadura, T.A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ

revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations.

Leadership Quarterly, 12 (1), 31-52. Cited in: Mark reid (2008).

A critique of transformational leadership theory. pp. 1-7

[online]. Available from:

http://www.academia.edu/300040/A_critique_of_Transformational_Lea

dership_theory [accessed 8th December 2013]

- Yukl, G. (1999). An Evaluative essay on current conceptions of

effective leadership. European journal of work and organizational

psychology, 8(1), pp.33-48 [online]. Available from

http://www.docsinbox.net/MGT5830/Yuklleadership.pdf [Accessed 8th

December 2013].