The And Transformational Transactional Organizational Theories Of Leadership

There have been numerous theories surrounding leadership, which attempt to explain which form is most effective in the workplace. A universalistic approach was once used to rationalize leadership and it was believed that successful leaders possessed certain common abilities and traits. However, today due to external factors such as globalization and advanced technologies, there has been an evolution towards a new paradigm of leadership. Subordinates want to feel empowered and engaged at the workplace and often the behaviors and relationships between leaders and their subordinates become important to understand in order to fully understand effective leadership. Contingency theories have been developed in which people began to look at the behavior of leaders in specific situations. Two such contingency theories are: Path-Goal and Hershey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory.

The contingency approach, founded in the 1970’s differs from the behavioral approach. “Examining various situational variables is central to understanding leadership in organizations, according to the contingency theorist” (Stojkovic, Klofas & Kalinich, 2012). Fiedler’s Contingency Model is one of those contingency theories.

The contingency model developed by Fiedler is based on the foundation that a meticulous leadership style is most effective in opposed situations. The key element would be to outline which leadership style needs to be used in what situations.

The path-goal theory’s focus is on the leader’s behavior that can allow for the employees to reach personal and organizational goals. A leader’s attitude has impact on the attitude of the staff. Leaders can reward employees when goals are met which can increase employee motivation, job satisfaction and overall productivity (Schultz, 2010). This theory identifies four styles of leadership as directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented (Schultz, 2010).

According to Burns, a transactional leader was someone “who approaches followers with an eye to exchange one thing for another: jobs for votes, or subsidies to include for campaign contributions” (Klinsontorn, 2007, p.35). An example using Burns definition, it would be like a boss paying extra incentive for its employee who does the most sales. Thus, followers obtain rewards for job performance, while leaders benefit from the completion of tasks. Transactional leaders are good at traditional management functions such as planning and budgeting and generally focus on the impersonal aspects of job performance. The definition of Burns was expanded by Bass (1985). He said that a transactional leader must also

My first leadership strength is my commitment / loyalty to the organization I work for. I

What does being a leader mean to you? By definition it is the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country. What unique characteristics and attributes do leaders contain that make us want to follow their lead and respect their authority? As a future healthcare executive, it is important to know these traits and leadership styles in order to be successful in the business and medical world. There are a number of different leadership theories, models, and styles that could be useful towards becoming a successful leader. The situational theory, contingency theory, and transformational theory are the three leadership theories that stand out the most to me. As a future healthcare executive, shadowing these leadership

Transformational leadership taps into the motives of followers in order to reach their goals, while transactional focuses on the exchanges that occur between leaders and followers (Northouse, 2013). The branches of the military in general would be considered transactional leadership organizations. This type of leadership encourages followers to perform tasks at a high level in order to achieve advancement or increase in pay or rank. Conversely, transformational leadership would be focused on creating a connection between the leader and the followers, in order to perform tasks in such a way as to increase the feeling of morality in both the leader and the follower (Northouse, 2013). Panorama did not exhibit any behavior that tried to motivate Bailey to feel a connection to him. Instead, Panorama tried to intimidate, coerce, and punish Bailey to execute the tasks he was required to perform.

Engender the trust and respect of their followers by doing the right thing rather than doing things right.

According to Avolio, Bass, and Jung, (1999) transactional leaders motivate to perform by using positive or negative feedback. Employees work is determined by the reward or punishment that the leader prescribes to achieve mission accomplishment. The leader’s effectiveness is determined by task completion. Breevaart, Bakker, Hetland, Demerouti, Olsen, and Espevik, (2014) suggest that the transactional leader is involved in sustaining operational flow. Zhu, Sosik, Riggio, and Yang, (2012) argue that the transactional leader uses the exchange of rewards to increase performance and is not concerned with strategic planning, as much as daily operations.

In contrast, to laissez-faire leadership, transactional leadership includes clear directions or processes that employees are required to follow. In addition, transactional leadership holds the employees accountable for their actions despite the fact that the directions were provided to them. (Odumeru, & Ifeanyi, 2013) While this leadership style has its advantages, it also has some disadvantages. There have been many studies on transactional leadership and the style has displayed many positive attributes. The first positive attribute is employee motivation. Since this leadership style is built on rewards and punishments, it has been found to be effective in motivating employees to be productive. For example, the reward that is promised

The contingency approach to leadership is the need for the leaders to be formable in their superior choice of leadership styles based on their situation thus if the leaders first attempt is to influence the group is failed ,the next suggested action will be to adopt a different style of leadership which is more compatible with the situation. Current theories and models of leadership explain the influence of position upon the satisfaction and performance of employees. While dissenting with one another, the theories share certain assumption that the style of leadership is likely to be effective may change according to the situation. Some leadership styles will be indifferent to the situation however certain organizational variables and individual task act as ‘substitutes of leadership’ contradicting the hierarchical superior ability to exert either positive or negative influence over subordinates attitudes and effectiveness. This report examines the nature of the contingency approach to strategic leadership and the implications of the main contingency models on different management.

There are a many different concepts that address leadership but the three covered in this discussion are the contingency model, path-goal theory and life-cycle theory (Plunkett, Allen & Attner, 2013). Each concept, if used correctly, can produce desired results within an organization.

(Scott, 1981). The theory’s basic assumption is that there is no particular leadership style that suits all situations. The favorableness of the situation decides on the type of leadership style that has got to be adopted (Fiedler, 1967). Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership (1967), identified three factors that determine the favorableness of the situation and based upon the situation, the type of leadership that has got to be adopted. The first factor is the leader and member relationship which refers to the level of mutual trust and respect between the leader and the memebers. The second factor is task structure which refers to extent to which group tasks are clear and structured. The third factor is the leader’s position power which refers to the power of the leader’s position itself. Based upon the three factors, for favorable situations task-oriented leadership style and for moderately favorable situations relationship-oriented leadership style should be

The theoretical framework of this study is grounded in contingency theory, Adams’ Equity Theory, Herzberg’s Two Factor theory, and the transformational-transactional organizational theories of leadership. Traditional leadership and motivational theories have failed to address how leadership styles and job satisfaction among employees serve as predictors of innovation in organizations. The strategic literature highlights leadership style and employee job satisfaction as an especially important influence on organizational innovation (Garcia-Morales, Jimenez-Barrionuevo, & Gutierrez-Gutierrez, 2012; Shipton et al., 2006). Employing the theories within the framework of the phenomena resulted in a complementary model. The variables in this