CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 Leadership and transformational theory
2.1.1.4 Transformational Leadership Theory
The notion of transformational leadership was introduced by James MacGregor Burns in 1978, during his descriptive study on leaders involved in politics. Over the years this notion has found itself widely used in all fields of management and leadership studies, becoming the theory most subscribed to today (Odumeru and Ifeanyi, 2013). In examining the concept of transformational leadership, one has to begin by defining a transformational leader.
Odumeru and Ifeanyi (2013) defined a transformational leader as an individual who invigorates others, inspiring them to accomplish exceptional results, adding that a transformational leader is one who is very attentive to the concerns and developmental requirements of every one of his followers. Furthermore, a transformational leader transforms their followers’ mental consciousness of issues by channelling them to view and deal with old problems in a completely different dimension, whilst stimulating, inspiring, and exciting them to go the extra mile in achieving organisational objectives.
McCleskey (2014) gave a similar definition, saying that a transformational leader is one who raises their followers’ awareness levels regarding the importance and value of the desired results, and the ways and means of achieving these outcomes. Such a leader influences subordinates to lay aside their personal interests in pursuit of the organisation’s success, while the level of their needs on Maslow's hierarchy of needs
27 is raised from concerns of lower level safety and security, to higher level needs for accomplishment and self-realisation (Scott, 2015).
Kutz (2012) added to the literature by summarising that the transformational leadership concept is the kind of leadership that inspires and motivates followers. He maintained that the inventiveness, appreciation, originality, and respect demonstrated by the leader helps him to effectively practice this leadership approach. Followers who are associated with transformational leaders admire and respect their leaders, because they are also given respect and admiration by their leaders.
According to Odumeru and Ifeanyi (2013), a number of mechanisms are used in transformational leadership to augment the morale, inspiration, and performance of followers. These include leading by example at all times, stimulating followers to take serious ownership and pride in their work, as well as knowing and understanding each one of the followers in terms of their strengths and weaknesses. This is in order to distribute and align the workload accordingly, so as to gain a good performance from every team member.
The Transformational Leadership Theory describes leadership that creates and instils positive change in the minds of the followers. The followers acknowledge the importance of ensuring that the interests of each individual team member are guarded by the same team members, whilst simultaneously considering group interests as a collective (Odumeru and Ifeanyi, 2013).
According to McCleskey (2014), as the transformational leadership style was being further researched, four key components of the concept emerged. The transformational leader displays these four components in different situations with differing levels of intensity, so that the anticipated organisational results are achieved by soliciting the efforts of the subordinates. These components are as follows (Bolden et al., 2003):
• Idealised influence − the extent to which the leader conducts himself in a commendable manner, demonstrating his beliefs and occupying a position that
28 motivates subordinates to align with him. The leader has strong principles, and his conduct is exemplary in the eyes of the subordinates.
• Inspirational motivation − the extent to which the leader communicates a vision that fascinates and inspires the subordinates, offering certainty about future objectives, whilst giving substance to the present responsibilities.
• Intellectual stimulation − the extent to which the leader challenges assumptions, invigorating and promoting subordinates’ innovations by giving a structure for them to ascertain their association within the organisation.
• Personal and individual attention − the extent to which the leader addresses each subordinate’s requirements whilst practicing as a mentor or coach, and providing respect to and recognition of the subordinate’s value to the team. This satisfies and improves each team members’ requirements for self-actualisation and self- worth, while simultaneously motivating subordinates to strive for more accomplishments and better personal development.
Bolden et al. (2003) argued that a differentiating factor for transformational leaders is their pro-activeness in a number of unique and different approaches. Transformational leaders strive to uplift the degree of maturity of the followers’ needs, some of the needs being those of security, achievement, and self-development. The transformational leaders influence their subordinates to aspire to accomplishments, morality, and ethical standards at higher levels. The development of the organisation is optimised through the development of their followers, hence these elements are critical.
Ultimately, high-performing organisations are built through high-performing employees (Bolden et al., 2003).
Yet critics of this theory have argued that a ‘perfect picture’ is portrayed by those who support this theory. Lee (2014) noted that the first and foremost criticism was that transformational leaders are represented as ‘great men’, with scholars writing about this theory highlighting a strong heroic bias in transformational leadership. This heroic leadership bias may naturally have detrimental consequences such as blind trust from followers and autocratic behaviour by leaders.
29 Lee (2014) further argued that followers risk fulfilling their leader’s vision, however impractical, over-ambiguous or even deceptive it may be. Indeed, the extent to which the goal proposed by the transformational leader is for the collective good is often open to debate. Ultimately, there is no exact means to ensure that the new direction or vision proposed by a transformational leader is better or more promising than the existing organisational priorities, and the dangers can be considerable. Consider the case when the leaders’ vision is intentionally deceiving or unethical; where would it direct the organisation?