Critique of Transformational & Transactional Leadership
Critique of Transformational Leadership & Transactional Leadership
“Leadership without perspective and point of view isn’t leadership-and of course it must be your own perspective, your own point of view. You cannot borrow a point of view any more than you can borrow someone else’s eyes. It must be authentic, and if it is, it will be original, because you are original”. (Bennis, 1992, p.122)
Introduction
This paper assesses two popular leadership theories: Transformational Leadership & Transactional Leadership. It further looks at the criticisms that are pitched against both theories. Extra emphasis will be placed on the criticisms that challenge both theories on the basis of certain flaws that are considered fundamental. It further draws out objective questions on how plausible all the empirical evidences are seen as there may have been some generalizing and misrepresentation in the parts of some critiques. In addition, pertinent claims of both theories have been addressed over time and its method of leadership have been brought to the fore and dissected.
The Transformational Leadership theory has been built under four components which have been the yardstick of measuring how leaders conform under them. The theory is believed to be grounded under moral foundation. These components are: i. the idealized influence, ii. inspirational motivation, iii. intellectual stimulation and iv. individualized consideration. Transformational leadership makes use of motivation towards satisfaction or a much greater level of achievement. Unlike transactional leadership that makes use of direct control, transformational leadership will require loyalty, trust, genuine concern and objective goals to achieve the much desired effect a leader wants to obtain from his employees. Transformational leadership is interested in a long term goal and vision, building and motivating people to take control of their leadership personalities, mentoring subordinates and using motivating words to
“Leadership without perspective and point of view isn’t leadership-and of course it must be your own perspective, your own point of view. You cannot borrow a point of view any more than you can borrow someone else’s eyes. It must be authentic, and if it is, it will be original, because you are original”. (Bennis, 1992, p.122)
Introduction
This paper assesses two popular leadership theories: Transformational Leadership & Transactional Leadership. It further looks at the criticisms that are pitched against both theories. Extra emphasis will be placed on the criticisms that challenge both theories on the basis of certain flaws that are considered fundamental. It further draws out objective questions on how plausible all the empirical evidences are seen as there may have been some generalizing and misrepresentation in the parts of some critiques. In addition, pertinent claims of both theories have been addressed over time and its method of leadership have been brought to the fore and dissected.
The Transformational Leadership theory has been built under four components which have been the yardstick of measuring how leaders conform under them. The theory is believed to be grounded under moral foundation. These components are: i. the idealized influence, ii. inspirational motivation, iii. intellectual stimulation and iv. individualized consideration. Transformational leadership makes use of motivation towards satisfaction or a much greater level of achievement. Unlike transactional leadership that makes use of direct control, transformational leadership will require loyalty, trust, genuine concern and objective goals to achieve the much desired effect a leader wants to obtain from his employees. Transformational leadership is interested in a long term goal and vision, building and motivating people to take control of their leadership personalities, mentoring subordinates and using motivating words to