The Relationship Between Transactional Leadership And Transformational Leadership

Transformational leaders encourage group work, as they connect each follower’s identity and self to the project and collective identity of the corporation. They are role models for other staff and this inspires them and makes them

According to Sullivan and Decker (1997) transactional leadership is a traditional, goal oriented type of leadership based on the social exchange theory. Work is exchanged for rewards in

Transformational leaders and transactional leaders differ from one another in the manner that they encourage and motivate those who follow them. Transactional leaders are defined as those who focus on monetary and tangible rewards as motivational tools for the daily operations (Marquis & Huston, 2015). Transactional leadership is associated with a clear organizational structure in which managers and subordinates understand their roles and know from whom to receive reward and feedback (Cherry, 2015). This type of leadership style focuses on motivation for the here and now to accomplish daily tasks at hand. This leadership does not focus on forward thinking or growth towards the future (Gellis, 2001).

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

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.

Transactional leadership styles are more concerned with maintaining the normal flow of operations. Transactional leadership is described as making contact with others for the

Devine and Winter (2012, p. 25) state, “there is nothing magical about leadership, and there is nothing magical about teaching it or learning it.” They go on to define leadership as the ability to influence those who work for you to want to accomplish and strive to reach organizational goals and objectives. Those who influence others must understand the theories of motivation so that these theories can be applied, communicated and taught in order to motivate followers (Devine and Winter, 2012). Different from supervision, leadership implores the desires of those around you to want to succeed in meeting a goal through you the leader’s motivational abilities.

Transactional Leadership was first described by Max Weber in 1947 and re-described by Bernard Bass in 1981. Recognized a traditional leadership, it focuses on the role of supervision, organization and group performance. Transactional leaders use an exchange model; they promote compliance of followers through both rewards and punishments. Not looking to change the future, transactional leaders are trying to keep everything the same (Odumeru & Ogbonna, 2013).

 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.

Two different leadership styles, which were first identified in 2004 by a noted scholar named Burns, are transactional and transformational leadership (Marquis & Hutson, 2009). Transactional leadership is a more traditional style of leadership and it is where the leader sets goals, gives directions, and uses a reward system to motivate employee’s behaviors related to

In my organization, Transformational and Transactional Leadership come together quite often. The text describes both as, “Transactional and transformational styles of leadership are sometimes interrelated; a trans¬formational leader, for example, can be and often is

Leadership development is a multi-billion-dollar industry in the United States and Europe. This essay discusses the difference in transformational and transactional leadership styles and provide examples. Transformational leadership is developmental and usually begins with a transactional approach. First, transactional leader's behavior approach is management- by-exception. This leader puts out fires by taking corrective actions to solve the problem. Additionally, he/she uses contingent reward behavior: rewards an employee for doing a good job. Both concepts have proven to be effective. Something as simple as a pat on the back brings about a greater

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

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.

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