Advantages And Disadvantages Of Reactional Leadership In Management By Exception

5. Transactional leadership includes a deal between the leader and his/her followers. The workers are basically doing tasks for the organization, in order to receive some kind of benefits, money, etc.

This theory is characterized by its emphasis on exchange. There is a kind of contractual between leaders and subordinates deal, therefore emphasis on performance so much. Hollander(n.d.) agreed, it emphasizes that task goals, working standards and output, tend to focus on task completion and employees to obey, relying more on reward and punishment to affect employee of the organization. Although to the management of employee, team and organizational change to achieve high benefit, transactional may try efficiency and profit maximization and ignore something long term, and may make the subordinate under the strong pressure and excessive rewards and punishments falling immoral and irrational myth.

 The transactional style of leadership is pretty straight forward but it uses rewards and punishments to motivate the team. This is a style of leadership that is similar but not as extreme as the autocratic style. The transactional styles are direct and dominant and spend a great amount of time saying what is expected from the team as a whole. The leaders monitor the work and each and everyone’s individual performance, there is also a clear chain of command.  Transactional leaders are very commonly found within businesses where people are given rewards such as bonuses, training or time off if they show a good demonstration.

Transactional leadership is built on reciprocity, the ways in which leaders and followers influence one another, and the idea that the relationship between leader and their followers develops from the exchange of some reward, such as performance rating’s, pay, recognition, or praise (Marturano, 2004). This style of leadership does not promote a close relationship amongst the boss

Transactional leadership on the other hand was first described in 1947 by Max Weber; he first coined "rational-legal leadership — the style that would come to be known as transactional leadership — as the exercise of control on the basis of knowledge” (Spahr, 2014). According to Spahr (2014), characteristics of transactional leaders include: focus on short-term goals, favor structured policies and procedures, thrive on rule following and doing things correctly, revel in efficiency, left-brained, inflexible, and opposed to change.

Over the past twenty years, an abundant body of researches have been done to review transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Burn (1978) was the first person to introduce and conceptualize the concept of transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Bass (1985) based on Burn’s concept and deepened his notion with modifications, which stated that one of the best frameworks of leadership is transformational or transactional. Following Bass and Avolio (1994, p. 4) provided the idea of these two leaderships and generalized them into the development of global economic world. Bass and Avolio (1997) also suggested that there was no need to view transformational and transactional leadership as

In a health care setting, the transactional leadership commonly used to continue a pleasant relationship among the managers and the subordinates while keeping promises of rewards for performance. The expectations of performance and the resulting rewards remain clearly identified and delivered upon completion of the agreement. The employees are rewarded with values according to the accomplishment of the performance of the employee to the mission and objectives of the program. The effectiveness of the transactional allows the managers to facilitate employee performance, helping the employees plan and coordinate the assigned task and learn new skills.

Transactional and transformational leadership differ. Ingram (2016) states “Different managers employ distinctly different management styles, ranging from relatively hands-off, facilitative styles to autocratic, micromanaging styles. Managers can also employ different motivational strategies and techniques to boost employee performance or accomplish internal change. Transformational and transactional leadership are polar opposites when it comes to the underlying theories of management and motivation. Understanding the difference between transformational and transactional leadership is crucial for anyone pursuing a career in management.” (Ingram, 2016). When I was a manager, I had to make sure my store operated properly and maintain sales. Sometimes I would hold contest for my workers to motivate them, Ingram (2016) states “Transactional leadership styles are more concerned with maintaining the normal flow of operations. Transactional leadership can be described as "keeping the ship afloat." Transactional leaders

The situational leadership model was developed by two authors, Ken Blanchard, and Paul Hersey in the year 1969. These authors based this model on the concept that leadership should adapt to different management practices and approaches to fit different situations and surpass any diversity of their encounters (Lussier & Achua, 2010). In particular, this model provides guidance on how to analyze a situation, choose effaceable strategies and adopt the most appropriate leadership style. Apparently, the two developers of the model researched and found that, given some case, leadership may fail to accomplish some goals due to adopting single

from a transactional approach; employees perform a job and are rewarded based on how or what they do. Leadership has been hindered by this approach. While transactional leadership has a place within certain organizations, there is definitely a need to broaden organizational leadership approaches to attend to different organizations. My organization led and operated on a strictly transactional basis. Employees were expected to write tickets and respond to collisions and based on the number of tickets or collision employees were evaluated or rewarded for this work. This transactional style of leadership created an environment of flippancy with regard to work.

Over the past twenty years, an abundant body of researches have been done to review transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Burn (1978) was the first person to introduce and conceptualize the concept of transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Bass (1985) based on Burn’s concept and deepen his notion with modifications, which stated that one of the best frameworks of leadership is transformational or transactional, but not opposing to each other. Followed by Bass and Avolio (1994), they provide the idea of these two leaderships and generalize them into the development of global economic world. Bass and Avolio (1997) also suggested that there was no need to view transformational and

While the transactional leadership can be seen as simple contract trade based on the interest of greed, which sometimes get confused with what we call the manager’s task. The transformational leadership seeks to satisfy high need of its subordinates, commit to aspiring human dimension to a process of stimulation and mutual development in which the selfish interests are transcended in favor of the common good.

The study performed by Chavez et al. associated transactional leadership with “contingent reward, active management-by-exception, and a combination of passive management-by-exception with laissez-faire leadership” (Chavez et al. 79). Essentially, males tend to focus more on the interactions between the leader (themselves) and followers by exploiting rewards and punishments as a means of motivation. Barbara Mandell and Shilpa Pherwani had a similar definition in their article titled “Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style: A Gender Comparison”: “…transactional leadership occurring when the leader rewards or disciplines the follower with regards to performance” (390). According to Mandell and Pherwani, transactional leadership focuses on work standards, assignments, task oriented goals, task completion, and employee compliance (390). This style tends to look further down the road at the product rather than the path to the final creation. There is less emphasis placed on the employees generating goals and the steps to accomplish said goals, while more stress is put on the completion of given tasks. Through this style of leading, one person has majority, if not full, control over what happens in the group of workers. The designated leader gives specific directions to his employees and expects the tasks to

Before explaining the differences between transactional and transformational leadership, I want to explore each of the two leadership styles through details. According to the definition, transactional leadership is focusing on managing and supervising subordinators by setting up specific tasks and expectations. In most cases, this kind of leadership is based on a system of rewards and punishments, which could also motivate employees to work hard. On the other side, transformational leadership is trying to help every individual achieving his or her potential and make the whole group energetic and enthusiastic by working together with the followers. Instead of telling employees what to do and when to do, transformational leaders are more likely to be open mind so that followers feel free to contribute new ideas as well as solutions.

Transactional leadership is a style that maintains business operations by helping the business to continue the flow of business activities and operations. The leaders at Ford follow the same style to motivate the employees in day to day activities in order to enhance the business (Lecture 2,