Main features leadership – Charismatic, Transformational, Transactional
Charismatic leadership is a leadership style that involves the use of inspiration and motivation to attract and keep followers. Normally, charismatic leaders are highly concerned about their surroundings and the mood of their would-be followers.
Transformational leadership on the other hand resembles charismatic leadership in relation to inspiration and motivation.
However, they differ in relation to scope whereby, transformative leaders are after transforming their followers and influencing or causing change in their beliefs and social status while charismatic leaders are egocentric in nature.
Finally, transactional leadership involves individuals’ acceptance to follow a leader after being offered something in return.
It focuses on compliance of the follower to the standard set by the leader in exchange of payments. The aspect of reward differentiates it from transformational and charismatic theories of leadership (Chemers, 2000).
Three behaviours according to Yukl
Yukl (1999) identifies three behaviors including inspiring, developing, and empowering that should be included in transformational theory.
Through inspiration, a leader articulates vision and strategy for the organization, thus influencing followers to become enlightened, energized, and focused on working towards the fulfillment of goals of the organization.
In relation to developing, followers are allowed to use their skills, including those skills that were previously subconsciously dormant. In addition, the leader improves self-awareness and self-confidence of followers, which simultaneously enables them to use their skills effectively.
Finally, empowerment involves the ability of the leader to offer authority or voice to followers wholesomely, giving them permission to act at their own will. It is a kind of power-sharing offer given by the leader to followers within the organization’s structures (Yukl, 1999).
Yukl’s Criticism of Current Transactional Theory of Leadership
In his criticism of current theory of transactional leadership, Yukl states that the theory fails to make a strong link between transaction leadership as a process of leader-subordinate exchange and each of the transactional behaviors.
The theory further explains that transactional leadership is a reactive behavior that does not involve the exchange process, which gives a leader an exception to wait until a problem becomes severe before responding with a solution.
The theory does not explain how the leader deals with performance problems; that is, there is no description of steps the leader takes to correct mistakes when they are discovered.
Yukl further states that monitoring of the subordinates’ performance to facilitate transactional leadership is not clearly explained while its existence is in doubt (Yukl, 1999).
Personal Theory of Leadership
My personal theory of leadership is Servant Theory, which involves a leader helping followers to achieve their wellbeing first before attaining other goals. The leader’s primary motivation is a deep desire to serve others, in this case, his/her followers (Winkler, 2010).
It involves sacrifices made by both the leader and followers to serve the public and not limiting their services to fellow members. Moreover, the theory aligns itself to religious morals and teachings, as one gets nothing by serving others but a belief of blessing and personal inward satisfaction.
Although it can be applied effectively in public sector, it may face challenges in private sector where the underlying factor is reward to an individual’s effort (Winkler, 2010).
Interviews on leadership
The three people interviewed about their personal leadership idea include Mr. Samson Osborne who is a youth pastor at the Redeemed Gospel Church in New Jersey, Florida, Mr. John Jameson who is a campus van driver at Philadelphia Community College, and Mrs. Margaret Andrea who is a kindergarten schoolteacher at the Meridian Montessori School at Brae burn.
All these people have different personalities and behaviors that influence their leadership qualities. To begin with, Mr. Osborne is one self-determined kind of a person that I have known. He sticks to his decisions and makes all efforts to his ability to ensure he accomplishes every task he undertakes.
On the other hand, Mr. John Jameson is a down-to-earth kind of a person. With his advanced age, he takes his own initiative to ensure that everybody has been dropped to his/her hostel at the right time and picked from there in a similar format.
His long period of service as a University driver makes him a caring and a sociable kind of an individual. Finally, Mrs. Margaret Andrea is one person that I have come to trust and respect in a short time I have known her.
She keeps on advising my mother on every simple mistake my younger brother does and how to guide the kid whenever he is at home with us.
When my brother became sick, she took her own initiative to take him to hospital before even informing my mother about it; to her, life is very important and one has to respond with haste to measures of safeguarding another person’s wellbeing.
My co-worker, Mr. Michael Jones, who is the head of printing department at Urban Age Advertising Company, in New Jersey, Florida lacks leadership qualities as far our daily interactions I have had with him is concerned.
That aspect of responsibility that any leader must have, however small the position of leadership one is appointed to, does not manifest in him at all.
He gives less consideration on the wellbeing of his subordinates regardless of the situation; his stand is that all people have to cater for themselves or get assistance elsewhere. His is egocentric in nature and he does not apologize to anyone for behaving in such a manner.
Leaders are not born but are made by circumstances and environment, which they are exposed or voluntarily decide to live in. Social, economical, and political factors shape a person towards leadership position, either publicly or privately within his/her societal settings.
Leadership starts from personal point of view; the way one views him/herself as person is how it will impact his/her actions toward people surrounding him/her to the extent of them deciding to view him/her as their leader or not (Northouse, 2010).
Reflection on theories about leadership
Through Mr. Osborne, self-determination personality trait manifests itself; thus, leaders have to be naturally self-determined to achieve strides in their daily challenges.
In relating to Mr. John Jameson, the University driver, being down to earth aspect of his character shows that a leader who takes time to fulfill the needs of his/her subjects cultivates the feature of loyalty and earns self-respect from them.
Mrs. Margaret Andrea caring and follow-up nature towards the kindergarten kid shows an aspect of accountability, which is very important in a leader.
A leader who is able to track the development of his/her subjects gets a simple time in gauging necessary steps he/she needs to take in order to improve or enhance growth (Gill, 2006).
Mr. John and Mrs. Andrea give an example of transformational leadership style, whereas Mr. Osborne manifests both transformational and Charismatic theories of leadership (Chemers, 2000)
Transformational theory of leadership has been prominently featured among the three interviews based on the individual they perceive to have leadership influence in their lives. Transformational leadership theory explains a condition where followers are inspired and motivated to follow their leader voluntarily.
This has been marjory manifested in the character of the University driver, Mr. John, who ensures that everybody has been satisfied to the ability of his efforts. A visionary person achieves great things; Mr. Osborne is one visionary person who sticks to whatever decision he has made and endures to fulfill it to maturity.
Vision is an important character of transformational theory of leadership; leaders with vision inspire followers, as they find it easier to sell the vision and ideals of fulfilling it (Yukl, 1999).
In servant leadership theory, the leader morally puts the needs of his follower before other goals; the leaders’ motivation is the deep desire to serve others, not only his followers, but also the whole public in general.
This theory relates to transformational theory in that, they both endeavor to make a change in lives of the followers; through the motivation and inspiration, leaders attract followers to be associated with them.
Both servant and transformational theories are not reward-oriented, as they attract their followers voluntarily and both work towards self-improvement of their followers (Winkler, 2010).
The difference between the two is that, since transformation leadership is based on self improvement of subjects, its enthusiastic nature can mislead followers as they believe that it always has the right answers to every problem they might; this belief might mislead the followers.
On the other hand, servant leadership does not directly influence followers’ decisions but it gives guidance on ways of improving their wellbeing; it only enhances the choices they decide to make.
References
Chemers, M. (2000). Leadership Research and theory a Functional Integration. Group Dynamics, Theory and Practice, 4(1), 27-43.
Gill, R. (2006). Theory and Practice of Leadership. London, England: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and Practice. London, England: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Winkler, I. (2010). Contemporary Leadership Theories: Enhancing the Understanding of the Complexity, Subjectivity and Dynamic of Leadership. London, England: Springer.
Yukl, G. (1999). An Evaluation of Conceptual Weaknesses in Transformational and Charismatic Leadership Theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 235-305.