Transactional Leadership Theory

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

Organizational leadership builds on traditional theories in order to form new and exciting directions. Transactional leadership is a traditional theory, which has been used as a platform to understand leadership and further develop techniques for higher organizational performance. The three components of transactional leadership help shape and define the style, but are not always strictly adhered to. There are many advantages and disadvantages of transformational leadership. Knowing how and when to apply this style will prove useful for most successful organizational leaders. President Dwight Eisenhower was a good example of how transactional leadership could be used successfully.

Transformational leadership’s influence on job performance, job satisfaction, employee attitudes, and employee engagement has been studied and compared to the influence of transactional leadership on the same. This paper compares three studies by three different researchers. Wright and Pandey (2010), Emery and Barker (2007), and Hechanova and Cementina-Olpoc (2013) conducted empirical research to determine the degree of influence transformational leadership played in each of their sample populations. This

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

Hater, J.J. & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Joumal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695—702.

The charismatic leadership style depend on the attraction and persuasion of the leader. Charismatic leaders are driven by their beliefs and promise to their cause. In this theory of Charismatic leadership, they say that charismatic leaders act in a different way they have a special charismatic effect on their followers. They are dominant, having a strong way to influence other people to be self- confident, and have a strong sense of one’s own moral values.

In the article, Curtis and O’Connell discuss the difference between transactional and transformational leadership. Transactional leadership is based on

The type of leader I am is a transactional leader. I am a transactional leader because, I like to be positive towards my subordinates and rewarding them for good behavior, or doing well with tasks such as inspections. I believe this helps with morale and encourages people to work proficiently to complete the mission. I personally believe that if you take care of your people your people will take care of you.

An author that is consistently referred to by Yukl, 2013 is James M. Burns, 1978 on transformational leadership. According to Burns, transforming leadership is a process in which "leaders & followers help each other to advance to a higher level of morale and motivation" (Burns, 1978). Burns (1978) informs the readers that the purported difference between leadership and management is in the character and behavior. Burns’s (1978) perspective on leadership has been used by others to develop leadership theories and influence on followers for positive performance (Yukl, 2013). Burns (1978) is said to have developed the idea that transformational leaders change the behavior and motivations of followers. In other words, influence on followers can be determined by the leadership method, behavior, and style. Transformational leaders strive to motivate and change followers’ mentality to redirect energy into action to complete the goals and mission of the organization (Burns, 1978). The argument is that the character and traits of the leader transforms and motivates subordinates to perform better and better (Yukl, 2013).

Idealized Influence represents the leader’s ability to be a role model for ethical behavior. Through the leaders ethical decision they build trust and respect with their followers.

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

Many great leaders have one thing in common and that is charisma. Charismatic leaders are those that have the capability to inspire and encourage people to do more than they would normally do, despite obstacles and personal sacrifice. (Daft, R.L, pg. 364) Charisma is what provokes energy and commitment out of its followers. These leaders possess the power to motivate their followers to do almost anything. They create an atmosphere of change and express an ideal vision of a better future. The most common characteristics of the charismatic leader involve maturity, communication, humility, and inspiration. These unique qualities impact their followers and conduct themselves in such a way that allows for remarkable results. Then

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

Weber’s second type of influence is charismatic authority. Charismatic authority is characterized by a leader with rare personal features that attract others to them. Charismatic leaders have qualities that are powerful and challenging

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.