Transactional Leadership Style Analysis

This describes, in essence, the perspective of the Industrial Age/transactional-style of leader towards their subordinated. Though to be clear, there is a distinction to be made between the transactional-style, proper, and that style as it was in history, subject to the social, economic, technological contexts of the Industrial Era. The transactional leader “does not individualize the needs of subordinates or focus on their personal development. Transactional leaders exchange things of value with subordinates to advance their own and their subordinates’ agendas (Northouse, 181).” This style of leadership is actually given some further perspective by Quinn, who writes that:==================== “The transactional paradigm suggests that an organization
As Northhouse points out, “...situational leadership focuses on leadership in situations...to be an effective leader requires that a person adapt his or her style to the demands of different situations (89).” Thus, unlike other approaches to leadership, the situational leader cannot assume a fixed stance of authority over their subordinates, where they, as authority, have the sole unquestionable power to make perfect decisions in the organization. Likewise, the situational leader cannot be dull to the abilities of their subordinates, or the (both) changing and immediate needs of the organization in which they serve. The situational leader can lead, not because of their authority, not because of their given role, but because of their ability to adapt to the situation they find themselves in; and help their organization do so, in turn. This means figuring out how the leader’s subordinates are motivated, and how to appropriately direct them to circumvent the inevitable hurdles to an organization’s success. ==================== Last but not least, Northhouse describes “Passive/Avoidant” models of leadership. These being, of course, a problematic form of leadership without the leader taking any personal engagement in the work of their subordinates. Basically, these are
The individual is a crucial component of an organization, and their knowledge is what is key to ensuring they, as members of an organization, are better equipped to see, from their given areas of knowledge, room for improvement within an organization. Thus, in the age of the Knowledge Worker, I would say a leader (in-line with the transformational and situational approaches of leading) would have to be able to evaluate the knowledge of their subordinates, and cultivate a greater knowledge of their own organization, as well. In other words, leaders in the Age of the Knowledge worker would have to be able to make use of the situation their subordinates present them with, i.e. with their varying arrays of skills and knowledges that could be useful to an organization. Furthermore, that leader would have to enable the knowledge workers in their organization to become more autonomous leaders in