Leadership Models The paper examines, compares, and contrasts four major leadership models, – transformational, transactional, servant, and Machiavelli leadership style. Transformational leadership was first introduced and developed in 1978 by James Burns (Adams, 2001).
This model of leadership, in contrast to transactional leadership, implies that every person should be treated as individuality, while transactional leadership model is based on the use of external motivators. Transactional leadership implies the exchange between the leader and his followers. There are four major types of behaviors often associated with this type of leadership: active management by exception, passive management by exception, contingent reward, and laissez-faire leadership style. In contrast to transformational leadership, transactional leader uses the combination of rewards and punishments in the capacity in incentives used to motivate the followers to perform some action. Although transactional leadership is quite effective, and the vast majority of leaders seem to adhere to this type of leadership in their daily practice, transactional leadership hardly can be used in case the leader wants to achieve long-term objectives (Dunham, 1984).
The Essay on Transactional Leader and Transformational Leader
Transactional Leader as the word implies business or exchange. Burns, 1978, opined that a transactional leader is someone who leads though social exchange. It is a process that I simply call trade by batter, you do this for me, and you get that in return. A politician can be a transactional leader when he seeks to exchange one thing for another i.e. making promises and pulling through with the ...
While the followers are motivated to perform specific tasks, they are not motivated to perform something beyond their basic requirements. In contrast to transformational and servant leadership styles, Machiavellis leadership style is based on victory rule (Albrecht, 2003).
According to him, the rule number one is victory, and in case the leader wins, his followers will always find the methods he used to gain a victory, to be appropriate and perfect. He also considered that if the leader must choose between being feared or loved, it is significantly better to be feared. Yet, it should be taken into account that although Machiavellis style of leadership can be of some benefit (in case used properly), it rather reminds a tyranny and hardly can be called the most effective leadership style. Finally, transformational style of leadership takes place when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. This style of leadership is quite effective, as it requires the leader to have a clear collective vision and to effectively communicate it to the followers (Bedeian, 1983).
Transformational leaders inspire their followers and are the role models, inspiring the followers by their own examples to be more innovative and to undertake all efforts to make the company operating more efficiently (Starratt, 2004).
In contrast to transactional leaders, transformational leaders transform their followers, encourage them, stimulate by positive examples and emphasis on the importance of working and acting together for the common good. Servant leadership style, similar to transformational style, places high emphasis on the collective vision and the process of dialogue between the leader and his followers (Hall, 2007).
However, in contrast to transformational style, servant leadership implies the leader to be the steward of the resources provided by the company (Autry, 2001), thus encouraging servant leader to serve his followers and, at the same time, being focused on achieving desired outcomes in line with the company’s integrity and core values. Transformational and servant leadership have much in common, and can be referred to as contingency models, as all they acknowledge the relationship between the leaders and their followers, as well as the situation. These models, in contrast to transactional model, imply that the leaders have an ethical and moral obligation to their followers. In such a way, these models are the best models that can be used by the leader to address contemporary leadership issues and challenges. References Adams, B.
The Essay on Theories On Qualities Of Leaders And Followers
There appears to be a particular trend in research on leadership. Most of it subsumes vision within charisma. Some scholars even suggest that it is the vision that leads to the attribution of charisma to the leaders in the first place. However, we think that charisma and vision are two distinct concepts and as such a leader may be charismatic but not visionary, or visionary but not charismatic, ...
(2001).
The Everything Leadership Book. Avon, MA: Adams Media Corporation. Albrecht, K. (2003).
The Power of Minds at Work: Organizational Intelligence in Action.
New York: AMACOM. Autry, J. A. (2001).
The Servant Leader. Roseville, CA: Prima Publishing. Dunham, R.
B. (1984).
Organizational Behavior. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin. Bedeian, A. G. (1983).
Management. Chicago: Dreyden Press. Hall, T. M. (2007).
Becoming Authentic: The Search for Wholeness and Calling as a Servant Leader. Starratt, R. J.
(2004).
Ethical Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass..
