Avolio walumbwa & weber 2009

Transformational Leadership And LMX

For this Forum, read (link) Chapter 6 (pages 151-160) and (link) Chapter 7 (pages 182-188), in the Dugan textbook.

Also read:

Article - Transformational Leadership (link)

Select one of the following two questions to answer in this forum:

1 - Describe in-group and out-group members. What does this concept relate to? Do employees choose which group they want to be part of? Can they move back and forth between the two groups?

OR

2 - Describe transformational leadership. What are the four types of leadership behaviors that are identified in transformational leadership? Describe them and how they influence followers?
Instructions: Your initial post should be at least 250 words, not including repeated questions, references and quotes.

7 Theories of Transformation “People who go about seeking to change the world, to diminish suffering, to demonstrate any kind of enlightenment, are often as flawed as anybody else. Sometimes more so. But it is the awareness of having faults, I think, and the knowledge that this links us to everyone on Earth, that opens us to courage and compassion.”

ALICE WALKER

Theories of transformation mark a distinct shift in the dominant leadership literature attempting to alter its intention. If posed the question “leadership for what?” prior theory clusters would respond with a resounding focus on productivity. Theories of transformation offer a more humanizing approach that couples goal attainment with individual and social advancement. Transforming/transformational leadership, servant leadership, and the social change model of leadership emphasize the concurrent importance of people, process, and purpose, examining the role of individuals and collectives in shaping how leadership positively influences systems. These are lofty goals and the theories are not without their faults. As Walker's quote so elegantly conveys, we engage in transformational approaches with all the beautiful fallibilities that make us who we are, shape how we engage with one another, and ultimately complicate the process of leadership. Theories of transformation capture this, inviting us to wrestle with our imperfections along with the inherent messiness of working toward positive change.

TRANSFORMING/TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP For almost 40 years, transforming and transformational leadership has represented the dominant approach in the leadership literature (Antonakis, 2012; Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Bass, 2008; DíazSáenz, 2011; Dinh et al., 2014; Mhatre & Riggio, 2014). So essential is its perceived influence that Antonakis (2012) argued that “it would be hard to imagine what the field of leadership would have been like had transformational leadership … not been developed” (p. 256). What began with Burns's (1978) transforming leadership led to evolutions and extensions, including the fullrange model of leadership (Avolio, 2011; Bass, 1985), charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), and authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). This chapter focuses on the scholarship of Burns and Bass as these are among the most frequently researched and translated to practice.

Overview The origins of transformational leadership are typically attributed to Downton's (1973) work on “rebel leadership,” but it was Burns's (1978) conception of transforming leadership and his

Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:18:56.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

infusion of ethics and morality that elevated it to greater prominence. He argued that absent ethics, leadership was nothing more than management. Burns's work is also positioned as the catalyst for the grand paradigm shift in how leadership is understood in the “story most often told” of how leadership theory has evolved.

Burns (1978) defined leadership as the process of  “inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and the motivations—the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations—of both leaders and followers” (p. 19, emphasis in original). Thus, leadership is not a unidirectional power relationship, but a bidirectional relationship that takes into account the development of the follower as well. He conceived these relationships as falling along a continuum, with transactional leadership representing one end and transforming leadership the other. Thus, leaders adopt either a more transforming approach or a more transactional approach in terms of how they structure their relationships with followers.

Burns (1978) identified transactional leadership as the most typical approach employed by leaders because it capitalizes on selfinterest and involves the exchange of items of perceived value as a means to motivate followers (e.g., financial payment in exchange for work performance). Conversely, transforming leadership leveraged both leaders' and followers' mutual morality, motivation, and aspirations to accomplish goals, demonstrating a more profound effect on followers by raising their levels of consciousness to transcend self interests. Burns also believed transforming leadership developed “a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents … the type of leadership that can produce social change” (p. 4).

Bass (1985) built off the foundations of Burns's (1978) work but altered the terminology from transforming to transformational. His efforts largely focused on clarifying its application to practice. However, he deviated in several significant ways from Burns's original concepts. He shifted transformational and transactional leadership from operating on a single continuum to two separate continua, arguing that motivating followers to performance beyond expectations involved the use of both transactional and transformational behaviors to varying degrees.

Additionally, Bass (1985) initially diverged from the assumption that transforming leadership was inherently ethical, omitting this from the theory and directing greater attention to the importance of charisma. This meant that transformational leadership might be in service of a greater good, but this was not always the case and, in fact, transformational leadership could be used to advance opportunistic selfinterests. This removal of the intent of the theory contributed to a number of problems. For example, representation of transformational leaders often defaults to “great men” such as Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. The removal of Burns's moral component allowed leaders with horrifyingly negative influences on society to be classified as “transformational” (e.g., Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin). Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) later made corrections to this distinguishing between transformational leadership, which retained an ethical and moral focus, and pseudotransformational leadership , which masked as such but was employed to advance only the opportunistic selfinterests of the leader.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:18:56.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

Applying the Concept Bass and colleagues (Avolio, 2011; Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994) nest transformational leadership as part of the full range leadership model, which identifies three behavioral meta categories consisting of eight factors that interact dynamically to shape a leader's behavioral style, in turn influencing followers' efforts. Yukl (1999) is quick to note that the model's name is misleading as it does not, in fact, cover a full range of behavioral considerations. Transformational factors associated with the full range leadership model include the following:

Idealized Influence

Originally referred to as charisma, this reflects leaders “who by the power of their person have profound and extraordinary effects on their followers” (Bass, 1985, p. 35). By serving as role models, sacrificing personal gain, acting consistently, and demonstrating ethical courage, leaders build emotional attachments that are leveraged in service of goals. These attachments lead to followers emulating the leader and perceiving them as trustworthy and well respected. Thus, idealized influence is as a result of both the behaviors that the leader enacts and followers' attributions.

Inspirational Motivation

This factor involves leaders' abilities to inspire performance above expectations, typically pushing followers to new heights “by providing meaning and challenge to … followers' work” (Bass & Avolio, 1994, p. 3). This in turn creates a sense of connection to a greater whole or team. The leader both communicates and rolemodels enthusiasm and optimism to involve followers in constructing a shared vision for the group.

Intellectual Stimulation

The leader engages followers in the process of “questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations with new methods and perspectives” (Avolio, 2011, p. 61) to foster creativity, innovation, and critical thinking. This situates followers as cocontributors to the resolution of problems. Leaders are also careful not to publicly critique mistakes or stymie ideas just because they differ from their own.

Individualized Consideration

The leader aligns mentoring, coaching, and developmental investment efforts with the unique needs of each follower. Avolio (2011) argued this requires “a twoway exchange in communication” (p. 62) between leader and followers. The leader demonstrates active listening, delegates responsibility, and creates learning opportunities that contribute to the growth and development of followers. This creates a healthy climate that acknowledges, respects, and supports individual differences.

Transactional leadership factors include the following:

Contingent Reward

This involves creating a contract with the follower that specifies roles, responsibilities, Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:18:56.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

and desired outcomes. Positive rewards are exchanged based on the degree to which goals are met.

Active ManagementbyException

The leader monitors followers' performance, adopting an approach that is “more corrective than constructive” (Avolio, 2011, p. 57), closely observing and intervening before or as errors are made to reduce or avoid them.

Passive ManagementbyException

The leader monitors followers' performance and notes mistakes but does not offer corrective interventions before problems arise, waiting to address issues until after they have occurred. The leader may use punishment after the fact as a tool for accountability.

The final metacategory in the full range model describes nonleader behavior and consists of a single factor. Laissezfaire leaders are passive, avoid responsibility, or simply do not engage with their role.

The full range model suggests that leaders inherently engage in all eight behaviors to varying degrees. However, optimizing leadership, which in essence means elevating the motivational and performance potential of followers, involves balancing the frequency of transactional and transformational behaviors based on considerations associated with the context and system as well as the people, resources, and timing that comprise it (Avolio, 2011). Figure 7.1 illustrates how this balancing act alters followers' motivation and performance, in turn heightening leadership outcome achievement.

FIGURE 7.1 Adapted fullrange model of leadership

Nonleader behaviors, along with passive managementbyexception, are considered largely ineffective and should be practiced the least. Active managementbyexception

Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:18:56.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

behaviors should be kept to a minimum and while occasionally necessary are not typically effective or well received by followers. Conversely, healthy transactional behaviors in the form of contingent reward provide a foundation for the four transformational leadership behaviors, which leaders are encouraged to enact at high rates given they contribute to the greatest degree of satisfaction and effectiveness. Avolio (2011) positioned idealized influence and inspirational motivation as the most potent of the transformational factors. Finally, Avolio and Bass (2004) noted that effective enactment of transformational leadership behaviors should lead to a cascading effect in which followers are developed to their fullest potential and in turn become transformational leaders themselves. Thus, the impact of adopting transformational leadership is believed to go beyond just achievement of leadership outcomes to create an environment that contributes to broadbased human capacity building.

How Research Evolves the Concept The mountain of research on transformational leadership is built primarily on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), which was designed to measure the eight factors of the full range leadership model (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Given that so much of the empirical research on transformational leadership relies on the MLQ, substantial efforts have been directed toward its psychometric validation (Antonakis, 2012; Avolio & Bass, 2004). The instrument demonstrates both reliability and validity as well as significant crosscultural transferability. Countless studies along with metaanalytic research (i.e., studies of studies) examine contextual influences (e.g., career settings, individual differences, cultural contexts) with the potential to influence transformational leadership as well as its influence on leadership outcomes (Bono & Judge, 2004; Eagly, JohannesenSchmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). Let's divide results from these into the good news and issues to consider.

The Good News The great news is that research using the MLQ routinely demonstrates the positive effect of enacting transformational leadership on a wide range of leadership outcomes, including satisfaction with the leader, leader performance evaluations, follower performance levels, group performance levels, follower wellbeing, and organizational commitment and citizenship behaviors (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996; Wang et al., 2011). Perhaps not surprisingly, some studies show that although the benefits accrued from transformational behaviors affect all outcomes they are most potent on attitudinal and motivational ones (Wang et al., 2011). These studies also largely support that active and passive managementby exception as well as laissezfaire leadership have negative influences on leadership outcomes.

Perhaps most importantly, the full range leadership model rests on the key argument that enacting transformational leadership behaviors has a positive effect on followers beyond that obtained through transactional factors alone. Research by Wang et al. (2011) supports this, demonstrating an increased frequency of voluntarily motivated actions exceeding the requirements of a follower's job description when contingent reward is augmented by

Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:18:56.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

transformational behaviors. The same effect is observed in team performance. Interestingly, this augmentation effect operates in reverse with regard to influencing followers' performance of base job responsibilities. If you want followers to meet base expectations, transformational behaviors alone may not be sufficient, and if you want people to exceed expectations, contingent reward on its own is insufficient.

The Concerning News Less is known about precisely how the enactment of transformational leadership contributes to such significant gains in leadership outcomes. Some argue it has to do with the ways in which followers are empowered and their leadership development stimulated as a result of engaging with a leader who enacts transformational behaviors (Mhatre & Riggio, 2014). Others argue that transformational behaviors contribute to greater personal identification with the leader, trust, intrinsic motivation, psychological support, and individual and collective efficacy (Kark & Shamir, 2002; Mhatre & Riggio, 2014; Yukl, 1999). Ultimately, though, the full range leadership model does not provide a prescriptive recipe for how to implement the factors that comprise it. Nor does it offer a comprehensive explanation of just how the four factors interact with one another to produce transformational leadership, largely offering just a set of behavioral recommendations (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2015; Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013).

Another essential argument of transformational leadership involves the cascading effect and belief that exposure to transformational behaviors contributes to the development of followers into leaders in their own right. Empirical evidence on the influence of transformational leadership behaviors on followers' leadership capacity is scant. Furthermore, there exists virtually no examination of the effects of transformational leadership in actually transforming conditions. How are organizations dramatically altered based on the principles? What gains have been made because of transformational leadership in ameliorating the compelling social, political, and scientific issues faced by society? Indeed, Antonakis and House argued (2002) that existing “evidence does not imply that transformational leaders cause transformation in organizations and followers. Although causal links could be theorized, up to this point, we have seen no empirical evidence to make that deduction” (p. 27). A decade later Antonakis (2012) stated that “we are still waiting” (p. 280).

WrapUp Transformational leadership reflects the single most dominant theoretical approach, wielding enormous influence on leadership practice. It is frequently positioned as the catalyst for a boom in leadership research and altering the very paradigm of how leadership is understood. Yet, Yukl (2013) argued that the derivatives of transforming leadership don't quite capture the intent of moral uplift and social progress evident in Burns's (1978) original work, defaulting more toward its use as a vehicle for organizational goal achievement. Table 7.1 identifies strengths and weaknesses associated with transforming/transformational leadership theory.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:18:56.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

TABLE 7.1 Strengths and weaknesses of transforming/transformational leadership

Strengths Weaknesses

Grounded in moral values, it is among the earliest theories to espouse the importance of investing in follower development

Substantial, highquality research supports the validity of the theory and its influence on a wide range of leadership outcomes

Situates transformational behaviors in the context of transactional and non leader behaviors differentiating the influences of each

Fullrange leadership is a misnomer as the metacategories described do not account for all leadership behaviors

Little evidence of how followers, organizations, or systems are “transformed” as a result of behaviors

Leadercentricity offers minimal consideration of follower agency despite articulating a mutual relationship between leaders and followers

Making Connections

Transformation sounds great, but who has the power and authority to determine the type of transformation being pursued and the moral foundations that guide it? How might this run the risk of replicating dominant norms?

What stands out as useful about transforming/transformational leadership? What do you think needs to be addressed in the deconstruction and reconstruction processes?

SERVANT LEADERSHIP The concept of servant leadership initially emerged as a philosophical framework for understanding leadership in a series of papers written by Greenleaf (1970, 1977), a business executive who worked for AT&T. Greenleaf offered a reframing of what he believed leadership should be about. His philosophy suggested that formal leaders should act as servants first and leaders second, reflecting a calling to give back rather than selfserving motives or an overemphasis on production. Greenleaf's propositions contributed to a wide range of publications and the formation of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership to advance the philosophy and train people in its application to practice. Numerous businesses, universities, and religious organizations have adopted servant leadership as the foundation for their work given its positioning of leadership as a moral imperative. Despite servant leadership's popularity in practice and existence for over 45 years, it has only been in the last 15 years that scholars have directed considerable attention toward its empirical validation.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:18:56.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed