Research on Recent Leadership Theories Ashley V. Twyman
Organizational Behavior & Human Resource Management 8/18/2008 – 9/28/2008 Dr. Susan Sasiadek
Research on Recent Leadership Theories 1 When asked to research a recent leadership theory, I was a little hesitant. Papers which are meant to accompany research are not my strong suit. However, I was pleasantly pleased to come across a recent leadership theory that I not only found entertaining and thought provoking, but educational as well. I will be discussing transformational and transactional leadership and its differences and similarities to some theories that have been discussed in our book. The Transformational leadership theory was first introduced in concept, in 1978 by James MacGregor Burns. He first came up with this leadership theory during his period of treatment of the political leadership, but it is now used in organizational psychology as well. The two styles differ based on what the leaders and followers are able to offer each other. These styles align with Max Weber’s, but Burns adds the dimension of moral and amoral leaders to the theory. “Transformational leadership… occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. Their purposes, which might have started out as separate, but related, as in the case of transactional leadership, become fused. Power bases are linked not as counterweights but as mutual support for common purpose. Various names are used for such leadership, some of them derisory: elevating, mobilizing, inspiring, exalting, uplifting, preaching, exhorting, and evangelizing. The relationship can be moralistic, of course. But
Research on Recent Leadership Theories 2 transforming leadership ultimately becomes moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and led, and thus it has a transforming effect on both.” (ed.wikipedia.org) These leaders are thought to be less concerned with short term goals and more able to focus and concentrate on long term goals, and are good at addressing issues that are much bigger than just themselves. There are four stated dimensions of transformational leadership: idealized influence (charisma), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration. Charisma, also referred to as idealized influence, can be summarized by saying “this is about the leader having a clear set of values and demonstrating them in every action.” (ed.wikipedia.org) A leader who displays idealized influence “practices what they preach” in every aspect of their lives, making themselves seem attractive to followers who may not be able to always live as they think they should. Inspirational motivation is what leaders use to entice their followers. This motivation may come in many forms, including, but not limited to, helping create challenging life goals, set forth higher standards than what the follower might currently hold true for them, and meaning in what followers do every moment. Intellectual stimulation is defined as “the degree to which the leader challenges assumption, takes risks and solicits follower’s ideas.”
Research on Recent Leadership Theories 3 (ed.wikipedia.org) This characteristic is also where creativity is encouraged and rewarded. Finally, individualized consideration or attention consists of the attention the leader pays to his or her followers. How attentive they are to followers’ needs, questions, concerns, and etcetera. It also describes the way followers interact with one another and how each follower is important in consideration to the team effort. When I came across Burns’ theory, I immediately thought it was interesting. For one, it has been the first theory I have come across so far in this course that addresses morals and integrity. In other theories, so far in the book, morality is not straight forwardly addressed; it’s more understood that integrity and morals are important, but it hasn’t come into play as a definite quality of any theory. It has not been considered as a variable factor in research on the other theories. I personally believe that morality of a leader is a HUGE issue. History has shown us that the world produced great leaders who accomplished many things, who are horrible people with bad moral character. For example, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, David Koresh, Joseph Stalin, Fred Phelps or Sadam Husein. All of these people are very famous, their names will go, and have gone, down in history. They had huge followings, were obviously wonderful leaders, and proved they were very good at getting others to believe in what they represented and what they had to say. Were they moral people? Did they do good things?
Research on Recent Leadership Theories 4 Depends on who you ask, doesn’t it? It is possible if you ask the German people (of Non-Jewish heritage); Hitler may be the best thing to ever happen to the country! He increased jobs and income for the German people. He helped those in the middle and lower class systems move upward. He increased revenue and production for the country, while in power. There is a large part of the German population who thinks Hitler is great! I have to say that even I am envious of Hitler’s ability to sway a crowd during a public addresses, speeches, and rallies. How about Fred Phelps? He and his followers believe they are totally moral! I had the pleasure of filming a protest they lead in Ark City while I was doing my undergraduate work at the Southwestern campus in Winfield. I interviewed Phelps’ followers, because I was the only filming student there who could not react violently to what they were saying. You can tell when you talk to Phelps’ people that they fully believe what they are doing and what they are saying is the epitome of morality! So who’s to say that Phelps is an immoral leader? The majority of people would believe he is, same as Hitler, but how can we be certain? In conclusion, I believe the morality issue is such a HUGE aspect of being a leader because it should encompass everything that leader does, says, and lives. All leaders want to be “moral” but isn’t that a relative term? Integrity and morality make leadership so much more complex and add yet more variables to every situation a leader will come across.
References Transformational Leadership from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, retrieved August 26 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_leadership Money-zine Leadership Theories, retrieved August 26 2008, from http://www.money-zine.com/Career-Development/Leadership-skill/LeadershipTheories/ Burns’ Transformational Leadership Theory, retrieved August 26 2008, from http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/theories/burns_transformational.h tm