TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP - P S GOODRICH.COM · reasoned that transactional leaders were like the bureaucrats, and charismatic heroic leaders were the transformation leaders. Burns

Transform into Super Leaders:

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

and See Charismatic Leadership

David M. Boje December 25, 2000

INDEX TO THIS PAGE (Click and go)

Introduction: How Story was Stolen from Charismatic LeadershipWeber (1948)

Figure 1 - Weber's Types and X/Y Dimensions of TraitsBurns 1978 TransformingFigure 2 - Plotting Burn's Types on X, Y & Z Dimensions of Traits

Bass 1985 TransformationalBennis & Nanus 1985 TransformationalSchein 1985 Culture Change

Also see Charismatic Leadership Problems from a critical postmodern perspectiveReferences

Introduction: How Story was Stolen from

Charismatic Leadership

In the beginning there was Max Weber's (1947) story of charismatic leaders, heroes

that transformed and changed the world, until they were ousted or succeeded by

bureaucratic or traditional authority. Sir MacGregor Burns (1978) studied Weber andreasoned that transactional leaders were like the bureaucrats, and charismatic heroicleaders were the transformation leaders. Burns set sail from the Isle of Behavior,

already having sailed to the Isle of Traits, and had heard of the Isle of Situation (but didnot go there). Burns came to settle on the Isle of Transformational Leadership (there isan out island there called Charisma).

Like Weber, Burns reasoned that moral values were important to leadership. For

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/338/transformational_leadership.htm

1 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Burns, the transforming leaders focused on ends, while the transactional leadersnegotiated and bargained over the means. Burns studied the historical, social,economic, and political context of the stories of great leaders to develop subcategories

of bother transactional and transformational leaders (See Table Two). However, Burnsdismissed Machiavelli and Nietzsche's theories of power as being amoral. Burnsfavored what he considered moral leaders, those without WILL TO POWER. They all

had what he called "the Spur of Ambition."

The Earl of Bass had also sailed from the Isle of Behavior and quickly decided that

Burns' stories were too messy, too hard to interpret, and instructed his magicians toconcoct technologies and instruments to convert story to factor analytic surveyquestions. Bass accused Burns of three atrocities: (1) Burns did not pay attention to

the portfolio of followers' needs and wants, (2) Burns restricted transformationalleadership to moral ends, and worst of all, (3) Burns set up a single continuum runningfrom transactional to transformational leaderly types (Bass, 1985: 20-22). These are

serious charges and mostly a wrong reading of Burns (1978) and Weber (1947).

First, both Bass, and to a less extent Burns, neglected the transactional aspects ofWeber. Second, while Burns did take of moral leadership, his approach was to look at

the high and low morality of both transactional and transformational leaders. Third,Bass' critiques Burns for setting up a continuum from transactional to transformational,but ends up doing the same thing. In addition Bass' theory becomes of a dualistic

hierarchy of transformation over transaction (see study guide on deconstruction).

These are some of the intrigues of the Isle of Transformation, currently the mostpopular island of all.

Max Weber's (1947) Model of

Transactional and Transformational

Leaders

Table One: Max Weber's (1947) Model of Transaction and Transformation

Leadership Authority

THREE FRAMES

FOR THE Capitalist

Entrepreneur

2. Bureaucratic

(Transactional)

Bureaucracy is "the

exercise of controlon the basis ofknowledge: (p.

339). It is the stuffof rational legalhierarchical power,


2 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

the Bureaucraticleader.

1. Charistmatic/

Hero

(Transformer)

An individualpersonality set apartform ordinary people

and endowed withsupernatural,superhaman powers,

and heroicCharismaticleadership qualities.

In short part Hero,and part Superman/Superwoman.

3. Traditional

(Feudal/

Prince)

Traditional is anarbitrary exercise ofSultan power

bound to loyalty,favoritism, andpolitics. It is stuff of

Princely leadership.


3 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Figure One: X & Y Leader Model

Introduction - Few, if any, leadership theorists have noted the transactional aspects ofWeber's (1947) model of the three leaderly authorities. Yet, what Weber theorized is

quite consistent (though not identical) with the transactional theory of Burns (1978) andBass (1985). Further, Burns, Bass, and then House (1977) all but ignore theroutinization of charisma aspects of Weber's theory, handing over a partial reading of

Weber. Most of all, what is missed about Weber by these and other leadershiptheorists, is the dynamic quality of the triadic Weberian model of leadership (See TableOne). It is assumed that the Traditional authority can be ignored, as the bureaucratic

gets subsumed under transactional, and the the charismatic, partially appropriated astransformational. For me, Weber's Traditional form picks up many of the politicalaspects that Burns differentiates into several subcategories of transactional leaders

(i.e. opinion, legislative, and party leader). Finally, the leadership theorists prefer to

ignore Machiavelli's Prince, where the Traditional form continues to play the politics ofpower in modern organizations.


4 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

About Weber - Max Weber was born 1864 and died 1920 (See Weber Page). Weberasks how is it a leader can "legitimately" give a command and have actions carried out?

He answered the question by classifying claims to the "legitimacy" in the exercise ofauthority. Except for slavery, people entered into one of three kinds of leader/followerrelations (Weber, 1947: 328-349, summarized). This is an idela type model, where

Weber lays out each ideal type, but also shows how in his inductive observations leadhim to believe that they occur in combination (such as a mixture of charismatic andbureaucratic and traditional components of authority and leadership, see p. 333). Only

in the ideal world is the bureaucracy "free of the necessity of compromise betweendifferent opinions and also free of shifting majorities" (p. 336). Weber also argues that"there may be gradual transitions between these types" of leadership and authority

systems (p. 336).

Here are the ideal types:

Bureaucratic/ Rational Grounds - resting on a belief in the 'legality' of patterns

of normative rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules toissue commands (legal authority). The ideal (pure abstract) type of bureaucracy(p. 333-336) is free of transaction negotiation and bargaining for resources and

power, but what Weber terms the "monocratic" (p. 337-341) and "modern"(capitalistic) types are much more transactional. The bureaucratic type ofleadership operates in a transaction economy.

The leader is subject to strict and systematic discipline and control in theconduct of the office. Claims to obedience based on rational values and rules and established by

agreement (or imposition). The office holder is restricted to impersonalofficial obligations and commands.Consistent system of abstract rules to apply to particular cases and

governing the limits laid down on the corporate group.There is a clearly defined hierarchy of offices. Persons exercise theauthority of their office and are subject to an impersonal order; officials, not

persons exercise authority. They have the necessary authority to carry outtheir specialized functions.Each office is defined sphere of competence and is filled by a free

contractual relationship (free selection based on technical qualifications orexamination). Each office is a career, a full time occupation. People are remunerated by fixed salaries, in money and in pensions. Salary

scales are graded according to rank in the hierarchy. There is a system of promotion based upon seniority or achievement(dependent on judgment of superiors).

Person who obeys authority does so in their capacity as a member of thecorporate group. Person does not owe obedience to the individual, but to the impersonal

order.A specified sphere of competence involves a sphere of obligations toperform functions marked off in the division of labor. Not every

administrative organ is provided with compulsory powers.The means of compulsion are clearly defined and their use is subject todefinite conditions.

There are rules that regulate the conduct of an office (either technical rulesor norms).

1.


5 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Only people demonstrating adequate technical training qualification can beselected to be administrative staff or placed in official positions. There is a right to appeal and a right to state grievances from the lower to

the higher. Sometimes administrative heads are elected. But in the pure form, thehierarchy is dominated by the principle of appointment. Appointment by

free selection and and free contract is essential to modern bureaucracy. Administrative staff should be completely separated from ownership of themeans of production or administration. Workers, staff, and administrators

do not own the means of production. There is a complete separation ofproperty belonging to the personal and to the organization. The exception isthe peasantry who still owns the means of subsistence (p. 338).

People do not own their positionsAdministrative acts, decisions, and rules are formulated and recorded inwriting.

At the op of the business corporation is a position that is not purelybureaucratic. It is more the position of a monarch (p. 3350. Capitalism fosters bureaucratic development, though bureaucracy arises in

other settings (e.g. socialist). "Capitalism is the most rational economicbasis for bureaucratic administration and enables it to develop in the mostrational form...". (p. 339). Weber foresaw that socialism would require a

higher degree of formal bureaucracy than capitalism (p. 339). EXAMPLES: The Catholic Church, hospitals, religious orders, profit-makingbusiness, large-scale capitalistic enterprise, modern army, the modern

state, trade union, and charitable organizations (p. 334-335).ADVANTAGES - capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency.Technical efficiency. The corporate control over coercive leaders. Favors the

leveling of social classes.DISADVANTAGES - powerful interests co-opt the offices and turn them intofeudal kingdoms.

Leveling in the interest of broadest possible basis of recruitment interms of technical competence.

1.

Tendency to plutocracy growing out of interest in greater length of

technical training.

2.

Formalistic spirit of impersonality that stunts enthusiasm and passion;Duty over personal considerations.

3.

Traditional Grounds (e.g. the Prince)- resting on an established belief in thesanctity of immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of the status of those

exercising authority under them (traditional authority).Legitimacy and power to control is handed down from the past. This powercan be exercised in quite arbitrary ways (Chief can declare himself above

the jurisdiction of the court).Office held by virtue of traditional status and be recruiting favorites or bypatrimony.

Obligations are not by office but personal loyalty to the chief. contracts offealty. Promotion is by the arbitrary grace of the chief (no technical training of skill

required). Commands are legitimized by traditionsObligations of obedience on the basis of personal loyalty (kinship, slaves,

or dependents).

14.


6 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Chief if free to confer or withhold his personal pleasure or displeasureaccording to personal likes and dislikes that can be arbitrary. The traditional exercise of authority is only limited by resistance aroused in

the subjects. Or, but pointing to a failure to act according to the traditions. Vassals are sorts of favorite people of the chief. This is termed Sultanism(the organization responds to arbitrariness and irrationality, rather than to

the rationality of economic activity, p. 355).Functions are defined in terms of competition among the interest of thoseseeking favors, income, and other advantage. Fees can be paid to the

Royal courts to purchase functions, such as shipping or taxation. Thisallows some mobility among the classes. It also results in bribery andcorruption as well as disorganization.

There is an irrational division of official functions (established by rights orfees, as described above). EXAMPLES - ruling families, feudal kingdoms in China Egypt and Africa,

family business, Roman and other nobilities, clans and armies of thecoloni. DISADVANTAGES: The development of capitalism is obstructed (p. 355).

In Traditional authority, the following Bureaucratic facets are ABSENT thatfacilitate capitalism (p. 343):

Clearly defined sphere of competence subject

to impersonal rules

1.

Rational ordering of relations of superiority andinferiority

2.

A regular system of appointment and promotionon the basis of free contract

3.

Technical training as a regular requirement4.

Fixed salaries5.

Charismatic Grounds (e.g. the Hero) - resting on devotion to the specific andexceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, andof the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him (Charismatic

authority). Charismatically qualified leader is obeyed by virtue of personal trust in himand his revelation, their heroism or exemplary qualities so far as they fall

within the scope of the individual's belief in his charisma.The words mission and spiritual duty are used q lot, as are words likeheroic warrior, prophet, and visionary.

Charisma regarded as of divine origin, the person is treated as a leader. Hero worship. Heroism begins with proof of charismatic qualification. Thehero must fight, and must be successful in brining benefit to followers, or

charismatic authority will disappear. Acts of misfortune can be signs thatthe 'gift' has been withdrawn by the gods. Deference to heroes in a war, leaders of a hunt, people of legal wisdom or a

shaman. founds of religions such as Mormonism (Joseph Smith) orChristianity (Christ) or Islam (Muhammad). "What is alone important is how the individual is actually regarded by those

subject to charismatic authority, but his 'followers' or 'disciples' "(p. 359).

19.


7 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Set apart from ordinary people and endowed with supernatural andsuperhuman powers and abilities. one type of charisma is a hereditary monarchy; Another is patriarchcal

authority. A third is religious charismatic. A fourth is the military hero.Charismatic leaders choose members not for technical training, but on thebasis of social privilege and the charismatic qualities of disciples. People

are not promoted, they are only called or summoned on the basis of theircharismatic qualification. Followers live in communistic relationship with their leaders on means

provided as voluntary gifts. There are no established administrative organs.There is no system of formal rules. the only basis of authority is personal

charisma.There is no abstract legal principle.The leader preaches, creates, or demands new obligations. There are

revelations and then there is the leaders will to power (Nietzsche).Charismatic authority repudiates the past and is in this sense arevolutionary force (in contrast to traditional authority).

Charismatic authority is radically opposed to both rational and particularlybureaucratic authority (p. 361). The charismatic is also, in pure for, an anti-economic force (p. 362). At the

same time it is the greatest revolutionary force. Charisma can not be taught, learned or acquired in discipleship. charismacan only be tested for, as in the Jedi Knights of Star Wars. And there is all

kinds of magical asceticism to the Jedi Knights that is proof of theircharisma, not to mention their heroic journeys of adventure. When two charismatic leaders oppose one another, the only recourse is to

some kind of a contest, by magical means or even an actual physical battleof the leaders (p. 361). the biggest challenge is for the charismatic administrative staff to transition

to a bureaucratic and rational administration (p. 370-371). ADVANTAGES - escape the control of bureaucratic apparatus. Escape thebonds of traditional inertia.

Weber is careful to point out that none of the three ideal types occurs in "pure" form(p. 329, 333) and that transitions and combinations can be observed. And he notedthat any pure charisma went through a process of routinization (a move from autocratic

charisma to its democratization). There can be a combination of bureaucratic,traditional, and charismatic leadership (p. 333). And Weber was quite clear in statingthat at the top of the bureaucracy, sits a CEO who fits the category of the monarch (p.

335); what Machiavelli calls the Prince. And at the top of the military command, is anofficer who is "clearly marked off by certain class distinctions" (p. 356). Officers differradically from charismatic leaders (though General Douglas MacArthur was said to

combine position, class elitism, and charisma). Mercenary armies could be dispatchedfor private capitalistic purposes (p. 356). In short the ideal (pure) types transmute oneinto the other.

Weber observed that there can be gradual transitions between the three types.The capitalistic entrepreneur could charismatically organize an enterprise with loyal

followers vested in their vision and mission. Then as the hierarchy, rules, contracts,and other apparatus are applied, the charismatic leader sits a top a bureaucracy. The


8 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

bureaucracy set constraints upon his exercise of authority and leadership. It may evenreplace him with an office-holder. As the bureaucracy turns to stone, it becomesincreasingly feudalistic, based on precedent, ritual and tradition. Soon people look

about for a charismatic leader to transform the feudal situation into a charismaticcause. There is a decentralization of authority, more delegation, and professionalizationof appointments. Thus through charismatic transformation, the traditional authority

becomes a bureaucracy, and turns feudal, and the endless cycle continues on till thepresent moment. Only small firms escape the influence of bureaucracy, but as theygrown there is no escape.

Yet while the cycle continues, the spread of bureaucratic administration in church,military, court, state, corporation, and university is foretold by Weber. Bureaucracy toWeber was the first knowledge organizations.

Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally the exercise o control onthe basis of knowledge. This is the feature of it which makes it specificallyrational. This consists on the one hand in technical knowledge which, by

itself, is sufficient to ensure it a position of extraordinary power. But inaddition... holders of power... increase their power... by the knowledgegrowing out of experience... technical knowledge is somewhat the same

position as commercial secrets to to technological training. It is a product ofthe striving for power (p. 339).

What is interesting and pioneering about Weber's knowledge organization, is that it is

based on a theory of power. Technical and experience knowledge and the control of itis part of the striving for power. And "the capitalistic entrepreneur is, in our society, theonly type who has been able to maintain at least relative immunity from subjection to

the control of rational bureaucratic knowledge: (p. 339). The charismatic has divine andmagical power to inspire devotion and to return successfully from heroic journeys.

Overtime, there is routinization of charisma. The charismatic leader and following

can not remain stable, and will turn to either traditional or bureaucratic authority. Thebureaucracy may need a charismatic leader to initiate reform, even revolution, but oncethe change is made, the charismatic personality has to go. Other interest become

conspicuously evident.

There can be a search for a new charismatic leader. Techniques of succession arebased on finding someone with a calling, but not by rational selection criteria. The

designated one must attain the recognition of the community. It is not a matter ofmajority vote, unanimity is required. Charismatic rule is sometimes transferred byheredity, but the bearer must prove they have charisma. Kings and Queens anoint their

successor in coronations with great official ritual and public spectacle. In the weakform, charismatic legitimacy is given to the position, as in the succession of popes andtheir divine right to rule being decided by ritual means. If the personal charismatic

leader can not find another charismatic person to succeed them, they the corporationwill turn to a Prince or Bureaucrat.

There are several main points.

Weber present more than an ideal type model of bureaucratic, traditional andcharismatic authority. His is a dynamic model showing how one form ofleadership and organization reverts into the other.

1.


9 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Therefore, the model is cyclical, with charismatic being the most unstable form,and bureaucratic ending up as a hybrid of monarchy at the top and bureaucracyeverywhere else. When the charismatic revolution happen, there is a reversion to

either bureaucracy or traditional fiefdoms in the corporate world. After revolutionsdirected against favoritism and powers of the bureaucratic office, the charismatichero is displaced in favor of a bureaucrat or a prince.

2.

The model is quite situational. Weber specified the economic and socialconditions that support the selection of each type of leaderly authority. But it is anunstable situational theory.

3.

Weber writes eloquently about the transformation of charisma into ananti-authoritarian direction. The legitimacy becomes democratic, once leaders areselected by plebiscite (vote). The new charismatic authority is based on the

legitimacy of public acclaim. For Weber the anti-authoritarian direction of thetransformation of charisma is into the path of greater rationality (p. 390).

4.

James MacGregor Burns (1978) Model of

Transactional and Transformational

Leaders

Burns bases his theory of transactional and transformational leadership on Kohlberg'sstages of moral development and Weber's (1947) theory of leadership and authority.

For a leadership paper on Nike Corporation applying Kohlberg's moral stages ofreasoning, please see Boje (2000c).

Table Two: James MacGregor Burns (1978) Model of Moral, Transaction &

Transformational Leaders

MORAL VALUE LEADER - emerges from, and always returns to, the

fundamental wants and needs, aspirations, and values of the followers (p.

4). For Burns his project is to "deal with leadership as distinct from mere

power-holding and as the opposite of brute power" (p. 4).

is lead to have a relationship not only of power but of mutual needs,aspirations, and higher values

1.

in responding to leaders, followers have adequate knowledge of alternativeleaders and programs and the capacity to choose among those alternatives

2.

leaders take responsibility for their commitments - if they promise certain kinds

of economic, social, and political change, they assume leadership in thebringing about of that change.

3.

Burns sets up a duality between amoral and moral leaders, and only the moral


10 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

leaders with higher purpose can be transactional or transformational leader. ThusBurns' theory of morality drives the duality. The hierarchy is as follows: amoral

leaders are coercive with a strong will to power, transactional leaders have themoral means to lead, and transformational leaders add to transaction what islacking, the moral ends of leadership.

THE AMORAL LEADER is for Burns neither transactional or transformational.

Amoral leader is for Burns and oxymoron. First, he rejects the "naked powerwielding coercive" dictators and fascists are rejected as being "true" leaders (1978:

20). "For Burns (1978: 20, italics mine) "naked power-wielding can be neither

transformational nor transactional; only leadership can be." Second, to be a moralleader, for Burns is to be sensitive to the needs and motives of potential followers.Third, the "crucial variable" for Burns is the "purpose" (p. 19) of the leader. Fourth,

Burns rejects the "gee whiz" personality cult of celebrities as an elitist theory ofpower (p. 1, 22). Finally, Burns rejects the kinds of Traditional Legitimating rulers(or Sultans) that Weber (1947) writes about. This serves to appropriate Weber's

charisma as transformational, bureaucratic as transactional, but exorcises traditional(feudal) authority and leadership as being outside the duality of amoral, moral-transactional (means), and moral-transformational (ends) leadership. Burns,

therefore uses us moral/amoral theory of leadership and power to reject thefollowing persons as non-leaders:

Mussolini

Hitler

Stalin

Nehru

Also rejected is Gandhi (the question is why?).

THE MORAL VALUE LEADER is both transactional and transformational but indifferent ways (but never amoral).

Transactional Moral Value Leaders - lead with modal values (the means overends). Modal values include:

Honesty

Responsibility

Fairness

Honoring one's commitments


11 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Princes are less honest, responsible, fair or willing to honor a commitment that getsin the way of their power. Bureaucrat leaders define themselves by the modal

values, unless they become Princes.

Transformational Moral Value Leaders - lead with transcendent values (the ends

over means). Transcendent values include:

Liberty

Justice

Equality

Collective Well Being

Heroic charismatic leaders

THE TWO MORAL LEADER SUB-TYPES

Transactional Leader

approaches followers with an eye to

exchanging one thing for another:

jobs for votes, or subsidies for

campaign contributions.

Opinion

McCarthy

Roosevelt

1.

Group

Whyte's Street Corner

Society

2.

Party

Jefferson

Lenin

3.

Legislative

Johnson

4.

Executive

de Gaulle

Roosevelt

5.

Transformational Leader

"recognizes and exploits an existing

need or demand of a potential

follower... (and) looks for potential

motives in followers, seeks to satisfy

higher needs, and engages the full

person of the follower" (p. 4).

Intellectuals

Rouseau

Locke

Madison

Bentham

Mill

1.

Reformers

Grey

Alexander

2.

Revolutionaries

Luther

Mao

Castro

Lenin

Louis XVI

3.

Heroes (Charismatics)

Moses

4.


12 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Joan of Arc

Muhammad

Kennedy

In Table Two (above), Burns' (1978) theory is summarized. Amoral values drivepeople who can wield power but are not by Burns' definition, leaders. Moral values

(means versus ends) drive the transactional and transformational leadership differentlythan the "evil: and brut power" of the amoral ones (p. 10). In short, Burns sets up aduality, a dichotomy between "saints" and "sinners" (p. 10).

Table Two includes lists of leaders mentioned by Burns to exemplify his typologies ofsubsets of transactional and transformational leaders, as well as the excluded amoral"evil" sinners. It is important, however, to note, that the leader can embrace different

kinds of leadership (subsets of either transactional transformational categories, such asLenin) as the situations, times, and conditions merit (such as Roosevelt's treatment ofthe senior Kennedy). Hitler, Gandhi, and Roosevelt seem to fit all the categories in

different situations, each able to be transactional, appealing to the varied interests andnorms of groups, or transformational, staging spectacles of heroism with charismaticspeeches. In short the leader wears many masks. Yet Roosevelt, but not Hitler and

Gandhi actually get written into the transformational and transactional theory ofleadership. For Burns Hitler is easy to reject as a simple despot, "Hitler... was noleader, he was a tyrant" (p. 2-3). To me, this sets up an incredible mystery: why is

Gandhi marginalized by Burns, and left out of his recitation of transformation andtransaction leadership?

The Forgotten Moral Dimension of Burn's Model - Burns (1978) studied the

stories of great and lesser leaders to develop a taxonomy of amoral (power wilders)and moral (transactional and transformational leadership), and only moral leaders areadmitted to his typology. The typology is a duality in that amoral leaders are not

admitted to be "real leaders," and the real leaders are either transactional ortransformational. Further transformational has hierarchical position over transactional,transformational being defined as being "more potent," "more complex" and of "higher

moral" agency than transitional (p. 4). The hierarchy is Transformational is more thantransactional, and these more than amoral uses of power. For example, Hitler's deathcamps and " holocaust of terror" disqualify him as leader, as does the gulag of Stalin's

prisons, an "apparatus of power" (p. 9). Nehru is also rejected, since she "jails herpolitical adversaries" (p. 9). Burns rejects their naked power as the will to power of thedictator.


13 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Figure Two: Combining Leader Traits of Weber's (Bureaucrat, Hero & Prince) with Burn's

(Opinion, Revolutionary, Reform, Government Party) leaders, using 3D

Table 1

SEPTET Theatrics

In the box

3 Dimensions of

Leadership Box

X Plot s (behaviors & events)X Behavior dimension

(transaction/transformation)

Y Themes of will to service &

will to powerY Power dimension (will to serve/will topower)

Z Dialogs of participationZ Participation dimension (1voice/many voices)

Inside Box we

can locate two

elements

Characters and their traits Traits (Myers & Briggs)

Frames of organizing Organizing processes

Situation of the Rhythms of time Situation (time & place)


14 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Box has two

dimensions Spectacle s of place

The transactional and transformational choices of leaders in Burns' typology do notinclude naked power wilders. And the transformational ones have modal (means overends) motives, while the transformational leaders make means consistent with attaining

higher ends. The amoral leaders also lack the intent to bring followers to a higher levelof moral reasoning (as in Kohlberg's or Maslow's hierarchies). Many readers miss thefact that for Burns, leadership, be it transactional or transformational was about moral

values, and amoral power-wielders did not qualify as leaders (p. 20). In this sense, theduality and hierarchy of amoral, transactional-means, and transformational-ends isbased on Burns' theory of power and psychological motives. "All leaders are actual or

potential power holders, but not all power holders are leaders" (p. 18). Andpsychological the power wielders are distinguished from leaders, because the former"treat people as things" and real "leaders do not obliterate followers' motives" (p. 18).

At the top of the leadership pyramid is the transformational leader who "convertsfollowers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents" (P. 4).

For transactional leaders, the negotiation of resources and transactions was monitored

by modal values, "that is values of means - honesty, responsibility, fairness, thehonoring of commitments - without which transactional leadership could not work"

(Burns, 1978: 426). Transformational leadership was more about end-values, such as

"liberty, justice, equality" and collective well being (p. 426). For burns bothtransactional and transformational leadership have moral implications. Burns sought amoral use of power, and looked at the transactional and transformational resources of

power holders responding in power relationships within some collective. Leaders andfollowers were in exchange relationships, based in power and moral values.

Deconstructing the Typology The Typology in Table Two can be deconstructed invarious ways. Most interesting, in my view, is how Mahatma Gandhi and Adolph Hitlerare not included in Chapters 6 to 9 of Transformational Leadership or chapters 10 to 14

of Transactional Leadership. They appear here and there in discussions of otherleaders, but do not become sketches for the subcategories ob Burns' typology (TableTwo). Both Gandhi and Hitler, along with Lenin (who is sketched as both

transformational as a revolutionary leader, and transactional as a party leader) -- arehowever central leader figures in the chapters on the origins of leadership (chapters 3

to 5). The question arises, why does Burns leave Gandhi and Hitler (as well as

Nehru, Mussolini, and Stalin) out of his famous typology of great leaders?

Leaving out Gandhi is a conspicuous silence. Meanwhile, Lenin, unlike Gandhi (orHitler), is given a prominent place in the actual transaction and transformation

typology, even though all three are analyzed as the foundation of the typology(chapters 1 to 5). Lenin is given a pivotal position in the typology, as perhaps the onlyleader (other than Roosevelt), who has the qualities of both transactional (party) and

transformational (revolutionary) leadership.

Why is Gandhi left outside the transformational/ transactional typology? The answerfor Burns is one of motive, the ambition of each leader is different. Lenin, Hitler, and

Gandhi each have "ambition" and ambition for Burns has something to do with


15 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Nietzsche's "will to power (p. 13-15), Hobbes' power through fear (p. 15), andMcClelland's need for power (p. 14). For Burns to exercise a will to power, is a naked,brute, and despotic use of amoral power and can not be considered as leadership. But

then why is Gandhi left out?

What does Burns say about Gandhi? A clue to Burns' own psychosocial theory ofleadership is" "Long before Gandhi, Christian thinkers were preaching non-violence"

(p. 2). Burns relies on Erikson's psychoanalysis of the family circumstance of Gandhi,Lenin, and Hitler to decide the differences among the three, and who will ultimately beadmitted to Burns' (1978) new pantheon of leadership.

Gandhi, Lenin, and Hitler all felt close to their mothers (p. 58).Gandhi, Lenin and Hitler all lost their father at an early age (p. 93). Gandhi, Lenin and Hitler each were shaped early in their manhood by the "spur

of ambition" (p. 106-111).

The Spur of Ambition - the spur of ambition (p. 107) is the characteristic motive that

unites Hitler, Lenin, and Gandhi. "If ambition is a ceaseless spur, we must know moreabout its consequences" (Burns, 1978: 111).

At several points Burns, admits that Gandhi is a transformational leader.

Gandhi "created followers who were also leaders" (p. 129-130). Gandhi is an example of "transforming leadership" (p. 20). "Gandhi almost perfectly exemplified" what Burns summaries as

"egocentric self-actualization" (p. 449).

It is this last quote that, to me, explains why Burns is so conflicted about Gandhi, as aleader, and ultimately, must resort to exorcising Gandhi from his noble transformational

and transactional leadership theory. Gandhi failed Burns' leadership test, because henot only suffered the spur of ambition, but was a self-actualizer. And self-actualizingleaders are too close to the Nietzschean will to power to ever be admitted to the

pantheon.

Please refer to Myers-Briggs site for my attempt to integrate M-B traits of leaders wehave discussed with Figures One and Two leader dimensions.

X DIMENSION (See Figure One and Two) Transaction/

Transformation Theory and Weber. As TRANSACTIONAL/ TRANSFORMATIONAL (X)becomes less about managerial capitalism (command and control hierarchies, pushingabout the rewards and punishments, and playing the corporate game), and more about

intellectual capitalism (knowledge networks, diversity, pushing about informationsystems, and changing the game rules), we move from one end of the X-axis to theother. Everybody predicts a move away from bureaucratic, to post-bureaucratic

settings, and a need for leaders who can manage the transformation process to get usthere.

Burns, in my view, based his overall exchange model on Weber's approach to

charisma, bureaucracy, and power (p. 12, 243). We can see that transactionalexchange is Weber's bureaucratic authority and transformational exchange is thecharismatic heroic authority. But Weber had a category, that Burns did not include, that


16 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

of traditional (feudal) authority. Weber (1947) overall model distinguished betweenbureaucratic, charismatic (heroic), and traditional (feudal fiefdom or what I call Princely)leadership and authority. Burns did rely on Weber for a theory of power. Burns had

very little to say about Machiavelli or Nietzsche's theories of power. Power for Burns,was Weber's power theory, the probability one actor within a social relationship will bein a position to carry out is own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which

this probability rests.

Here and there Burns misreads Weber. For examples Burns (p. 243) asserts "Weberdid not make clear whether this give of grace (charisma) was a quality possessed by

leaders independent of society or a quality dependent on its recognition by followers." My own reading is Weber was quite clear on this point. "What is alone important ishow the individual is actually regarded by those subject to charismatic authority, but

his 'followers' or 'disciples' "(Weber, 1947: 359). Further Weber argued that followersexpected continued proof of charisma, particular in leaders succession. Further, theroutinization of charisma was a way to make charismatic more defined by the

affirmation of followers (even votes) than by divine inspiration.

Burns extends the heroic role of leaders in Weber by looking at contemporaryleaders who had a role in the transition of developing societies and economies. His

main contribution is to develop a typology of categories of transaction andtransformational leaders, based on his analysis of great historical leaders (See TableTwo). Both Weber and Burns look at Napoleon as charismatic. Burns adds Joan of Arc,

and Moses to the list of heroes, as well as John F. Kennedy.

Mao is part hero and part revolutionary. Other revolutionaries included by Burns areCastro and Lenin, and Louis XVI, who is the recipient of a revolution and is

decapitated. In additional to heroes and revolutionaries Burns includes leaders whoenact reform and bring about change through ideas.

Transaction leaders are typed into categories such as opinion, group, party,

legislative, and executive.

TRANSACTIONAL CATEGORIES OF

LEADERSHIP

Transactional leadership "requires a shrewd eye for opportunity, a good hand at

bargaining, persuading, reciprocating" (p. 169).

Opinion Leaders and Spectacle - In public opinion leadership, the transactions are

less tangible, like the exchange of a political office for electoral support (p. 258). Votersget psychic rewards from vicarious participation in the spectacle of the campaign andelection. No one expects opinion leaders to fulfill promises anymore. We watch the

presidential campaigns, knowing full well the every facet is orchestrated to arouse thisopinion or some other one. Speeches are drafted and redrafted to reflect the latestopinion polls. In the postmodern corporation, leaders change ad campaigns in


17 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

response to consumer demand, and in the case of Nike and Phil Knight, in response tocampus protests over campus apparel, and focus groups with young teens who haveheard about sweatshops. Increasingly corporations such as Disney, McDonalds,

Monsanto, and Nike control the formal media of communication. Disney buys ABC.Nike puts its swoosh on Mel Gibson in the recent movie "What do women want?"(Answer: they want Nike). corporations are rivals competing for the identical

audiences. Corporations hire media managers and conduct public opinion polls abouttheir products and executives. The manipulation of public opinion is the full time job ofopinion-leader CEOs of the postmodern corporation. The spin is everything, and it is

the staffers job to put a positive spin on every piece of bad news, and where possiblekeep bad news off the air (ownership of TV, radio, and newspapers helps). The publicin the age of the WTO protest is increasingly skeptical of opinion-corporate leaders.

The interactions and transactions over time of opinion leaders and all types of followers(employees, customers, workers, unions, suppliers, subcontractors, investors,legislatures, and even activists) constitute the structure of political opinion leadership.

Each faction seeks to sway public opinion in its direction.

Group Leaders - the bargainers and bureaucrats. Burns starts with William F.

Whyte's Street Corner Society, a group of young men in their 20s, the Norton Street

boys led by Doc. Beneath him are Mike and Dany and also Long John, and beneaththem are Nutsy and Angelos and Frank and a half dozen other followers. Whyteexamines the exchange relationships and transactions of this group. Docs part in the

transaction was to to offer protection to the group in exchange for their heeding hiscommands. Transactions consisted of mutual support and mutual promises,expectations, obligations and rewards (p. 288-289). For Burns, leaders such as Lenin,

Hitler, and Gandhi remain part of a system of complex group relationships, wheregroup memberships influence leader, and vice versa. Hitler's troops, for example,followed Hitler out of "dedication to Hitler as a strong, even immortal personality who

would ensure their physical strength and protection... Hitler was a brute power wielder,but his role was transactional for certain groups at certain times" (p. 292). In thisexample, Burns emphasizes the situational aspects of transaction and transformational

leadership.

Leaders can use charisma and transaction to enhance cohesion, solidarity, andconformity, as the situation demands. Leaders are at the center of the groups'

communications. The overt exercise of leader power in a group promotes groupconflict, heightens competing group claims, and thereby weakens solidarity.

Burns, in his chapter on group leaders, turns from Whyte's street gang leadership to a

renewed discussion of bureaucracy . The tie-in is Whyte's observation that the gangengaged in much repetitive behavior, had self-maintaining tendencies, and a stableequilibrium. There was also a powerful tendency toward conformity in the gang, that is

a common characteristic of bureaucracy. "Groups, like nation-states, may regarddeviation as disloyalty, noncompliance as treason" (Burns, 1978: 291).

Members of groups usually rank one another informally on the basis of

such factors as the recognized ability of the group member to relate togroup goals, the extent to which the person lives up to group norms and


18 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

follows group-approved procedures, and personal qualities that have nospecial relevance to the group but are highly valued in the culture (p. 291).

More recent studies of self-managing teams and leaderless groups such as Barker's

(1993, 1999) studies of concertive control, find that the conformity norms and coercivesanctions of group can lead to concertive control, in which the group becomes moreoppressive and panoptic than any lead by an authoritarian supervisor.

Bureaucracy favors consensus and discredits clash and controversy, as a threat to itsstability (p. 296). As Weber points out bureaucracy discourages charismatic personalities, favoring a depersonalized hierarchy, with rules, norms, paperwork, and

standards, a leadership vested in offices not in persons. Bureaucracy is anti-heroic.The most disciplined, impersonal, and rigid bureaucracy, is however full of Princelypower, the jockeying for personal power and competitive advantage of one fiefdom

group over another. At the root of bureaucracy is the Prince, the struggle for powerand the politics of power. Rules, originally conceived to be valued ends becometransformed into ends, and thus the modal (means over ends) situation of bureaucracy.

In the end the groups and divisions of a bureaucracy become political interest groups.

Leaders of bureaucratic groups and organizations can change social norms byadjusting transactions, conform, be deviate and divisive until a new bargain is struck, or

just leave.

Government Political - Party Leadership - (See Figure Three) parties contend andconflict in the struggle for power. Leaders face a perpetual battle of combative parties

seeking power. Leaders discover their own interests and activate interests, wants,needs, and expectations of followers, and then promise to meet them, resulting inmobilized demands for economic, social and psychological resources. Power is

channeled and distributed, creating the basis of transactional structures of political andparty leadership (p. 311). The tendency in such transaction structures is towardsoligarchy, as leaders of fighting groups are pitted against one another. In any

organization the leader competes and bargains and compromises with competingparties of conflicting group interests. The oligarchy fights against fragmented anddecentralization of power into splintered and diverse group interests. The populace

resists strong centralized party leadership. The oligarchy resists by forming coalitions.This is Robert Michel's "iron law of oligarchy." Parties begin with transformational, evencharismatic leadership and revolution and reform and end up as anti-democratic,

bureaucratic, and political organizations. "Bureaucratic timidity replaced the old daringand creativity" (p. 314). Leaders in today's corporate empires engage in bargaining,coalition building, and compromise to get any movement at all among deadlocked

political power groups.

In short there is a basic conflict between transactional and transformational forcesthat is being worked out and sorted out in complex organizations. And in this chapter,

Burns ignores Machiavelli, but posits the politics of power. Burns' examples are mostlyfrom Parliament and US democracy, but the corporation can bee seen as an unstablecoalition of political groups, vying for power, in Princely leadership.


19 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Legislative Leadership: The Price of Consensus - Bargaining, reciprocity, and

payoff is the transactional trading system of legislative leadership. None did legislativeleadership better than Lyndon B. Johnson. His transactional leadership exploitedchannels of obligation, expectation, awarding and denying prize committee

assignments and chairmanships, allotting congressional funds, amassing anddistributing credits, and hinting at threat through scorn and accusation to get his way.Huey Long was also a legislative leader, able to throw up roadblocks, politicize the

environment, and organize the rank-and-file. Burns did not remark at all on therelationship between legislative leadership and corporate power. Today's behind thescenes back-benchers are political action committees, where to finance legislative

campaigns, legislators trade their allegiance from constituency to corporate interests.

Executive Leadership - "The distinguishing characteristics of executive leaders, incontrast with party or parliamentary leaders, are their lack of reliable political andinstitutional support, their dependence on bureaucratic resources such as staff and

budget, and most of all their use of themselves - their own talent and character,prestige and popularity, in the clash of political interests and values" (p.372). Burns'hero of executive leadership is Charles de Gaulle. De Gaulle had little patience for

party of legislative leadership. "De Gaulle drew his political power not from traditionalpolitical institutions but from his own resources of self-confidence and indomitabilityand from direct, personal contact with the French people" (p. 370). De Gaulle and

more recently Ronald Ragan used the press conference to assemble journalists for aspectacle they would report to sway popular opinion by depicting dramatic leaderlyposes and sound bites, and when popularity crested, the legislature was influenced to

support the will of the people. de Gaulle was a theatrical leader, full of pomp andceremony, using sound bites about the dignity of the office.

De Gaulle's use of the press conference epitomized his personal approach.

In a vast hall used for galas, before six hundred journalists and two or threehundred cabinet members, officials, diplomats, and guests, and in the blazeof television lights, the general would enter through red curtains held apart

by ushers in white time and tails. Answering mainly anticipated questionsde Gaulle used the conferences less for the edification of the press than toinform and reassure his public (p. 370).

Spectacle is a powerful arbitrator to concentrate power. Philip Selznick, for Burns,provided the image of the total enterprise as a kind of polity embracing a number ofsub organizations (p. 372). In such a polity, some executives cultivate conflict among

their staff to better control them. Others look to available penalties, rewords andinducements to influence their staff (promotions, work assignments, appreciation, etc.).And some set up their own intelligence apparatus for their own unique purposes (p.

373). The accumulation of such power is necessary to overcome resistance to executiveplans and techniques.

Few were better at executive leadership than Franklin Roosevelt. He displayed an

intuitive grasp of the needs and motivations of each cabinet member, agency chief,


20 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

legislator, and ambassador. He would use charm, flattery, manipulation or whatevermask it took to get the mission or task accomplished.

Transformational CATEGORIES OF

LEADERSHIP

"... recognizes and exploits an existing need or demand of a potential follower...

(and) looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and

engages the full person of the follower" (Burns, 1978: 4).

Burns saw four categories in his typology: Intellectual, Reform, Revolutionary, andHeroic (charismatic).

Intellectual - An intellectual leader is devoted to seeing ideas and values thattranscend immediate practical needs and still change and transform their social milieu.

"The concept of intellectual leadership brings in the role of conscious purpose drawnfrom values" (p. 142). The intellectual leader is out of step with their own time, inconflict with the status quo. The intellectual leader is a person with a vision that can

transform society by raising social consciousness.

Reform - leadership of reform movements requires participation of a large number ofallies with various reform and nonreform goals of their own, which means dealing withendless divisions in the ranks, and a collective that is anti-leadership. Reform

leadership by definition implies moral leadership, which means an attention tomatching the means to the ends (p. 170). Reform leaders transform parts of society torealize moral principles. Burns uses the example of Charles Grey (born 1764) was the

first Earl Grey of Howick. Grey in 1792 proposed a bill to reform Parliament that wouldsplit the Whig party. He undertook the illegalization of the slave trade, a poor act, theIndia Bill, and a factory act. Grey put together coalitions and put through reforms that

were selected instead of revolution. The combined Reform Bill became law after muchposturing and debate in 1832. Grey displayed timing, steadiness of purpose, andmediation skills as a reform leader.

Revolutionary - "revolutionary leadership demands commitment, persistence,courage, perhaps selflessness and even self-abnegation (the ultimate sacrifice forsolipsistic leadership)" (p. 169). Where the reformer operated on the parts, the

revolutionary operates on the whole. The analysis of revolution always seems to beginwith the storming of the Bastille, an event that transformed the French monarchy. Thenthere is the Bolshevik revolution, a game conducted by elites over the heads of the


21 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

masses. Then there are the coups d'etats of banana republics. "In its broadestmeaning revolution is a complete and pervasive transformation of an entire socialsystem" (p. 202). Such transformation means the creation of a new ideology, the rise of

a movement, and the zeal to overthrow the status quo, and can result in thereconstruction of economy, education, law, and even social class. Luther, Lenin, Maoand Fidel Castro are examples of tranformative revolutionary leadership. Revolutionary

leaders have strong sense of vision, mission, and end-values, the transcendentpurpose. A transcendent purpose and strong will is needed to motivate masses ofpeople to revolt in the service of revolution. A little propaganda helps.

Martin Luther, for example, was a master propagandist, and "had an absolute,fanatical conviction that carried almost everything before it. And he had the goodfortune to live in an era ripe for ideological change, one in which the art of

communication had been modernized and the voice of a lone monk could be heard inmany lands" (p. 203). October 31, 1517, Luther posts the 95 Theses on the door of theWittenberg Castle Church.

When necessity demands it, and the pope is an offense to Christendom,the first man who is able should, as a true member of the whole body, dowhat he can to bring about a truly free council. No one can do this as well

as the temporal authorities (quote form Luther).

He engage in inflammatory writings and dialogues. The printing presses (using wood

cut impressions) spread his new demands On Improving the Christian Estate. WasLuther just a catalyst, the lightning rod for historical forces that had just piled uparound him? He shook the foundations of theological, political and economic power.

Luther was not an organizer, politician, or a strategist, he was a prophet.

In the French revolution, leaders emerged spontaneously in the crowd stricken bystarvation, to lead mass volcanic actions of revolution, in the face of soaring bread

prices, gouging middlemen and government harassment. Gangs of hungry peasantsroamed the countryside, pillaging and burning chateaus. With this revolution, thefeudal monarchy was abolished, nobility was renounced, church crusades denounced,

and local government was reorganized. Revolutionary forces included divisionsbetween craftsmen and journeymen, factory owners and workers, and urban and ruralfactions. Friends of Louis XVI rallied to oppose the revolutionary forces that would

destroy the monarchy and their way of life. Six weeks after the Bastille was stormed,

the Assembly put forth the Declaration of the Rights of Man. "Men are born and remainfree and equal in rights" was one provision. Another was equal right to hold office and

to speak, write, and print freely.

In 1770, at age 14, Marie Antoinette left her homeland and traveled to Versailles tomarry Louis XVI. She was from Austria and and her foreign and frivolous ways were

blamed for turning Louis's head away from the needs of the people and for his failureto bear heirs. She also "yawned and giggled openly during royal ceremonies" andsurrounded herself with attendants in public" AND Marie Antoinette was also called

Madame Deficit and blamed for the country's financial problems (Source).

'Qu'ils mangent de la brioche.' Let them eat cake. [Did she say this? The remark,perhaps apocryphal, was attributed to others much earlier.]

Marie tried to use PR to spin a new story about her. She had a painting commissioned


22 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

to demonstrate her family virtues. But word of mouth was then more powerful thanpainting.

Marie-Antoinette and Her Children by E. Vigée-Lebrun, 1787

On October 5 a mob of Parisian women marched on Versailles, shouting for thequeen's blood. On July 14th, 1789 the Parisian populace razed the Bastille and a shorttime later the royal family was imprisoned in the palace of Tuileries. In 1792 the

National Convention declared France a Republic. King Louis XVI (House of Bourbon) inDecember 1792 was put on trial for treason, found guilty, and on went bravely to theguillotine to be beheaded on January 21, 1793 (AT Place de la Revolution in Paris, now

known as the Place de la Concorde. ).

Marie Antoinette, Queen of France. 1755 - 1793, and her two sons were placed inprison and then executed. Marie Antoinette was beheaded October 16, 1793

Antoinette was cruelly treated during her final days of captivity. Her children


23 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

were taken from her, and her best friend, the Princess de Lambelle, waskilled and her severed head was put on a pole and paraded in front of theQueen. Antoinette followed her husband to the guillotine on October 16,

1793. She was executed without proof of the crimes for which she wasaccused (Source).

On October 16, 1793 she was taken through the streets of Paris in an opencart. She maintained her dignity to the end. On the scaffold sheaccidentally stepped on the executioner's foot, and her last words were,

"Monsieur, I ask your pardon. I did not do it on purpose." (Source).

Revolutionary leaders went on a reign of terror (a Year of Terror) and France declaredwar with all major nation states and then devoured its own children in acts of mass

murder.

Heroic (Charismatic) - The heroic, charismatic is what is today most referenced astransformational leadership. Yet for Burns, this was just one of four categories.

For Burns, Moses is the epitome of charismatic heroic leadership.


24 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Moses is born during the Jewish enslavement in Egypt. His mother, Yocheved,desperate to prolong his life, floats him in a basket in the Nile.

Exodus 2: 10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh'sdaughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, andsaid: 'Because I drew him out of the water.' 11 And it came to pass in those

days, when Moses was grown up, that he went out unto his brethren, andlooked on their burdens; and he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one ofhis brethren.

Moses led the Hebrew people, the Israelites, out of slavery in Egypt. He is depicted inExodus, as a vigorous and decisive leader. And God revealed himself to Moses, whichis proof of his charisma. As leader, Moses is surrounded by an endless number of

needs, people demands, requests for decisions, and problems to solve (Source)."Mosessat to judge the people, and the people stood about Moses from the morning until the

evening."

"For the role of a leader in Israel is not only to defend, redeem, preach and govern, butalso and primarily, to nurture. Moses is the savior of Israel and their teacher and

legislator, but also their raaya meheimna - their "faithful shepherd" and "shepherd offaith" - meaning that he is the provider of their needs, both materially and spiritually,feeding their bodies with manna and feeding their souls with faith" (source).

Theatrics of Leadership

Burns points us to some of the theatrics of leadership. For example the heroic(charismatic) leader, loves a spectacle, and the "spectators... love the performer ...

(and in politics) the halo surrounding Number One bathes the political landscape inglow of harmony and consent: (p. 248). (See Theatrics).


25 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Bernard M. Bass (1985) Model of Transactional and

Transformational Leaders

Ironically, Bernard Bass (1985) dedicated his book to James McGregor Burns.

Table Three: Comparison of Burns and Bass Models of Transformational & and

Transactional Leaders (common choices of leaders for Burns and Bass are in

red).

BURNS

Transactional

Leader -

approaches followers with an

eye to exchanging one thing

for another: jobs for votes, or

subsidies for campaign

contributions.

Opinion

McCarthy

Roosevelt

1.

Group

Doc, in Whyte's

Street Corner

Society

2.

Party

Jefferson

Lenin

3.

Legislative

Johnson

4.

Executive

de Gaulle

Roosevelt

5.

BURNS

Transformational

Leader -

"recognizes and exploits an

existing need or demand of a

potential follower... (and)

looks for potential motives in

followers, seeks to satisfy

higher needs, and engages

the full person of the

follower" (p. 4).

Intellectuals

Rouseau

Locke

Madison

Bentham

Mill

1.

Reformers

Grey

Alexander

2.

Revolutionaries

Luther

Mao

Castro

Lenin

Louis XVI

3.

Heroes (Charismatics)

Moses

Joan of Arc

Muhammad

Kennedy

4.

Please See Myers-Briggs tie in to trait approach to assigning Famous Leaders to

various typologies

Recall that Bass (1985: 20-22) says Burns: (1) did not pay attention to the portfolio offollowers' needs and wants, (2) restricted transformational leadership to moral ends (for

example Bass sees Hitler as transformational), and worst of all, (3) set up a singlecontinuum running from transactional to transformational leaderly types. Is this acorrect reading of Burns (1978) by Bass?

Bass (1985) spends the first two thirds of his book developing his theory oftransformation and transaction leadership.

Bass (1997) has argued that transformational leadership is universally

applicable. He proposed, that regardless of culture, transformationalleaders inspire followers to transcend their own self-interests for the good ofthe group or organization, followers become motivated to expend greater

effort than would would usually be expected (Source).

At one point, Bass (1985) contends that "most leaders do both (transformation and

transaction) in different amounts" (p. 22, italics in original, addition mine) or

"transformational and transactional leadership are likely to be displayed by the sameindividual in different amounts and intensities" (p. 26). Then in the next paragraph onp. 22, T and T become a continuum. The transactional leader, for example, could

"contribute confidence and desire by clarifying what performance was required andhow needs would be satisfied as a result. The transformational leader inducesadditional effort by further sharply increasing subordinate confidence and by elevating

the value of outcomes for the subordinate" (p. 22). If we deconstruct this logic, Bassseems to be assuming that transformational leaders have a lack. Transformationalleadership is hierarchically superior to transactional leadership, able to expand the

subordinate's needs with a focus on more transcendental interests. If we deconstructthe duality of transformational and transactional leadership further, at its base isMaslow's hierarchy of needs. The transactional leader appeals to lower order needs,

while the transformational appeals to higher order ones. In figure 2 (p. 22 in Bass)Bass presents one of several complex diagrams of transactional and transformationalleadership. Figure 1 (transactional leadership told in 7 boxes) is subsumed as one of a

dozen boxes of the transformational leadership model. I will not reproduce thosefigures here. The point is that transactional leadership is a minor subset of thetransformational model. Elsewhere, Bass says what the transactional leader


26 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

accomplishes, the transformational leader is able to "heighten" and "elevate" in thevalue of outcomes by "expanding the follower's portfolio of needs, influencing thefollower to transcend his own self-interest for higher goals and/or by altering the

follower's needs on Maslow's hierarchy" (p. 24). "The transactional leaders workswithin the organizational culture as it exists; the transformational leader changes theorganizational culture" (p. 24). The transformational leader even "changes the social

warp and woof of reality" (p. 24). In sum, transformational is hierarchically superior totransactional leadership valuation.

Bass further concludes that "the leadership of the great men (and great women) of

history has usually been transformational, not transactional" (p. 26). Yet, when welook at the combinations, they are arrayed in a hierarchy (see Table Two), with deGaulle being the extreme transformationalist with no transactional ability, Roosevelt

able to do both, and Johnson the extreme transactionalist even when doingtransformation leadership.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (1996 by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio).

Transformational Leadership guide.Transactional Leadership guide.Non-transactional (laissez-faire) guide.

You are now ready to fill out the MLQ - follow the steps to get yourscores.

Gender Differences - Bass contends there are none. Yet, other studies show thatwomen develop a "feminine style of leadership," which is characterized by caring andnurturance, and men adopt a "masculine style of leadership", which is dominating and

task- oriented (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). In a study of 345 metropolitanbranch managers, (Carless, 1998) found self-ratings by female managers indicate theyperceive themselves as more likely to use transformational leadership than male

managers.

Female managers are more likely than male managers to report that theytake an interest in the personal needs of their staff, encourage

self-development, use participative decision making, give feedback andpublicly recognize team achievements. In summary, female managersreport they use more interpersonal-oriented leadership behaviors compared

to male managers (Carless, 1998).

Bennis & Nanus 1985 Transformational

Leaders

Bennis and Nanus (1985) did a study of ninety top leaders. Their list of newlydiscovered leader traits include: logical thinking, persistence, empowerment, andself-control. But, most of all they rediscovered transformational (leaders) as being

different from transactional (managers). The transformation is to make followers intoself-empowered leaders, and into change agents. The leader's job is to articulateVision and Values clearly so the new self-empowered leaders know where to go. The


27 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Traits of a Transformational leader are the 4 I's:

Idealized Influence (leader becomes a role model)1.

Inspirational Motivation (team spirit, motivate, and provide meaning andchallenge).

2.

Intellectual Stimulation (creativity & innovation)3.

Individual Consideration (mentoring)4.

Actually some models (Lolly, 1996) get a bit more complicated,but the same problems apply.

Other book authors followed their lead:

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1989) The Leadership Challenge: How to GetExtraordinary Things Done in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Tichy, N.M. and DeVanna, M.A. (1990) The Transformational Leader. New York, NY:John Wiley and Sons.

Schein 1985 Culture Change as

Transformation

For Edgar Schein (1985) the transformation that matters is a change in the corporateculture. What do leaders pay attention to, measure, and control sends symbolic signalsto the rest of the corporate culture. The following case study applies this theory

(McAdams & Zinck, 1998).

By analyzing the interview responses from 60 staff members in the threedistricts, the authors identified leadership characteristics that were common

to all three districts and consistent with the research findings. Thesecharacteristics include:

Focus of Attention—Behaviors and actions by the superintendent

clearly identified the major priorities, interests, and commitments ofthe superintendent. By word and deed the superintendents provided astrong message about the centrality of these few priorities to the

mission of their school district.

1.

Goal-Directed Activity—Each of the three superintendents had aprocess in place for the orderly and systematic monitoring and

assessment of progress in those areas that were the focus ofattention. District and individual goals for the superintendent and otherdistrict administrators were clearly derived from the overall mission of

the school district and superintendent.

2.

Modeling of Positive Behavior—The typical activities of thesesuperintendents modeled the particular behaviors necessary to meet

the goals and fulfill the mission of the school system. These

3.


28 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

superintendents each interacted frequently with teachers andadministrators at the school level and were often directly involved inthe instructional process.

Emphasis on Human Resources—Each superintendent put anemphasis on staff empowerment, sophisticated staff developmentprocesses, and close attention to the hiring practices in the school

district.

4.

Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. H. (1991) Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

PROBLEMS

Leadership, even transformational, is in crisis. I take a "critical postmodern"perspective in the analysis of transformational leadership. Transformational leadershipis a discourse that trains us to see leadership in new ways. Critical postmodern is the

nexus of critical theory, postcolonialism, critical pedagogy and postmodern theory

(Tamara, Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science). Said another way,critical postmodern "fuses what may be considered the three great materialisms of

Modernity--Marx, Nietzsche and Freud--into a critical postmodern cartography" (Smithand Tedesco-Gronbeck, 1995).

... critical postmodern spatial theory privileges the lived spatialities of

left-margined communities as sites of socio-spatial critique. A postmodernidentity politics enacts critical postmodern spatial theory by nurturing thedevelopment of, and solidarity between, 'counterpublics', which are

subaltern community spaces where private spatialities of alienation arebrought to public discourse (Allen, 1999).

... Shaping a new democracy, understanding the role institutions play, and

attending to how knowledge is reproduced are all goals of a criticalpostmodern pedagogy (Nancy Diekelmann, 1999).

... researcher’s perceptions, experiences, language, culture, gender, race,

class, age and personal history and so on, shape the political andideological stance that researchers take into their research (Eva Dobozy).

... The task of critical postmodern thinking is the dismantling of narratives to

expose their hidden interests and oppressive intentions-whereupon the oldassumptions about foundational reality will be abandoned (Fitzgerald,1996).

Critical postmodern is a new coalition that challenges the current world order, includingits current fad and buzzword, "transformational leadership." We wonder just what is itthat is being transformed? Is there some change in the fundamental material condition

that we might have missed.


29 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Transformational leadership is studied using quite positivist (some post-positivist)methods. We would like to see some interpretative, narrative, and existentialmethods used to explore the transformations. And if we must use the empiric

tradition of post-positivism, how about checking into the material conditions ofwork that is being transformed.

1.

What are the possibilities in transformational leadership for decentered power,

worker resistance, agency, and identity politics?

2.

Lincoln (1998) makes the point that transformational leadership as it is currentlybeing studied does not attend sufficiently to discourse analysis. A critical

postmodern analysis of the discourse of transformational leadership would look atpower and resistance to efforts of transformation, how the discourse oftransformation subverts resistance, and questions of hegemony.

3.

Barker and Young (1994) look at the feminist connections to transformationalleadership in postmodern organizations. Collins (1986) takes a criticalpostmodern view.

4.

Critical pedagogy looks at the way in which people in various cultural groups aresocialized into power structures; as Tierney (1993a, b) puts it "naming silentlives." There is a need to look at transformational leadership discourse and

strategies that marginalize and silence race/ethnicity, social class, gender, andsexual orientation. In brief, transformational leadership promises to be anemancipatory project, but does it really deliver emancipation from command and

control to marginal group members. Questions of what is transformed and whogets advantage are ignored in the way the construct is being investigated.

5.

General References on Problems with Transformational Leadership

Barker, A. & Young, C. (1994). Transformational leadership: The feministconnection in postmodern organizations. Holistic Nursing Practice, 9 (1),

16-25.

Lincoln, Yvonna S. (1981) Critical Requisites for TransformationalLeadership: Needed Research and Discourse. Peabody Journal of

Education; v66 n3 p176 81 Spring 1989

Critical Postmodern Theory References where you can discern Problems with

Transformational Leadership

Allen, Lee Ricky (1999) "The Socio-Spatial Making and Marking of 'Us':

Toward a Critical Postmodern Spatial Theory of Difference and Community."Social Identities. Volume 5 Issue 3 (1999) pp 249-277.

Australian Feminist Law Journal.

Boje, D. M. (2001) "Tamara Manifesto." Tamara, Journal of Critical

Postmodern Organization Science. Vol 1 (1): 15-24.

Collins, P. H. (1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociologicalsignificance of black feminist thought. Social Problems, 33(6), 514-532.

Davis, Erik (1995) It Ain't Easy Being Green Eco Meets Pomo. This is call for

a critical postmodern ecology.


30 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Originally appeared in the Voice Literary Supplement, February, 1995

Feldman, Steven P. (1999) "The Leveling of Organizational Culture:

Egalitarianism in Critical Postmodern Organization Theory," Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 35:2.

Grace, André P. (1997a). Where critical postmodern theory meets practice:

Working in the intersection of instrumental, social, and cultural education.Studies in Continuing Education, 19(1), 51-70.

Grace, André P. (1997b) Taking it to practice: Building a critical

postmodern theory of adult learning community.

Hall, Joanne M. (1999) "Marginalization revisited: Critical, postmodern, andliberation perspectives." from Advances in Nursing Science, 22

Elisabeth Hayes and Sondra Cuban (2001) Border Pedagogy: A CriticalFramework for Service-Learning MJCSL Volume 4. - This paper proposesthat the metaphors "border crossing" and "borderlands," drawn from a

critical postmodern perspective, are new and powerful lenses for viewingthe often contradictory and conflictive experiences of university studentsengaged in service-learning.

Kincheloe, J. (1995). Meet me behind the curtain: the struggle for a criticalpostmodern action research. Critical theory and educational research. P. L.McLaren and J. M. Giarelli. Albany, State University of New York Press: 332.

Lopez, Elizabeth Sanders. (1995). The geography of computer writingspaces: A critical postmodern analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Purdue University, West Lafayette.

Miron, Louis F. (1996) "Preface to "The Social Construction of UrbanSchooling" - Hampton Press, Inc.

Munck, R and O'Hearn, D (eds) (2000), Zed Books, London Critical

Development Theory: Contributions to a New Paradigm. The book has afocus on critical postmodern theory as a new paradigm.

Terence Smith and John Gronbeck-Tedesco (1995) "Mapping the

Postmodern: Deleuze and Guattari's Social Schizophrenia."

Tamara, Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science - Tamara and

its subtitle, Critical Postmodern Organization Science applies critical and

postmodern theory, along with critical pedagogy and postcolonialism to the

social milieu that is organization science.

Tierney, W. G. (1993a). Building communities of difference: Highereducation in the twenty-first century. Wesport, CT.

Tierney, W. G. (1993b). Naming silenced lives. New York: Routledge Press.

Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1993c). Postmodernism and critical theory


31 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

in higher education: Implications for research and practice. In J. C. Smart(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, pp. 308-343.New York: Agathon Press.

Tierney,W. G. (1994). Multiculturalism in higher education: Anorganizational framework for analysis. This article suggest that a criticalpostmodern organizational perspective offers significant ways to asses an

institution of higher education's effectiveness. The first part of the articleoutlines what is meant by "critical post-modernism" and then delineates adefinition of multiculturalism in higher education based on the work of Henry

Giroux, Michael Foucault, and bell hooks. (RL).

Ziegler, R. L. (1999). "From the critical postmodern to the postcriticalpremodern: Philip Wexler, religion, and the transformation of social-

education theory." Educational Theory 49 (3): 401-414.

References on TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigmtranscend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52,130-139.

Bass, B and Avolio, B., Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, California, 1990.Bass, Bernard M. and Paul Steidlmeier ETHICS, CHARACTER, AND AUTHENTIC

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP Bass, B. M., Waldman, D.A., Avolio, B.J. & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformationalleadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group and Organization Studies, 12

(1), 73-87.Boje, David M. (2000) Theatrics of Leadership Model. Where Figures 1 and 2 areexplained.

Boje, David M. (2001) Myers-Briggs and Leadership.Burns, James MacGregor (1978) Leadership. NY: Harper & Row, Publishers. Boje (2000c) Nike Corporation, Nike Women, and Narrative Moral Dilemmas.

December 29, 2000. Goeglein, Andrea & Martin L.W. Hall Systems, Values and TranformativeLeadership.

Weber, Max (1947 Max Weber: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization.Translated by A. M. Henderson & Talcott Parsons. NY: The Free Press.

LINKS

Barnett, Kerry; John McCormick, Robert Conners (1999) A study of theleadership behavior of school principals and school learning culture in selectedNew South Wales State secondary schools.

Colvin, Robert E. (1999) Transformational Leadership: A Prescription forContemporary Organizations


32 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Carless, Sally A. (1998) Gender differences in transformational leadership: anexamination of superior, leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex Roles: AJournal of Research: Dec, 1998

McAdams, Richard P. and Richard A. Zinck (1998) The Power of theSuperintendent's Leadership in Shaping School District Culture: Three CaseStudies

Parry, Ken W. (2000) Leadership Profiles Beyond 2000: How AustralianLeadership isDifferent.

Leadership BibliographyLeadership Book List


33 of 33 6/2/2009 4:01 PM

Documents

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP - P S GOODRICH.COM · reasoned that transactional leaders were like the bureaucrats, and charismatic heroic leaders were the transformation leaders. Burns