Introduction
It is hard to disagree that adequate and effective leadership is integral to a successful, profitable, and competitive business. However, one might wonder what exactly defines positive and beneficial leadership from negative one. Should a leader be strict or friendly, empathic or distant, democratic or authoritarian? Do they need to share decision-making with their subordinates, and if so, how exactly and to what extent? All these questions relate to different leadership styles and allow us to understand the need for a division between approaches to leading organizations and human resources. There is no perfect approach, and while transformational, transactional, and servant leadership styles are widespread and effective, each has its strengths and weaknesses and may be useful or fail to work well in certain situations.
Importance of Using the Appropriate Leadership Style
Before exploring the differences between the three styles, it is essential to highlight the need for the various approaches and the value of selecting the best. According to Weiss (2019), “Leaders use different styles, roles, and methods to communicate, negotiate, problem solve, resolve conflicts, and innovate depending on the nature and requirements of particular environments, tasks, individuals, and groups” (para. 1.2). It is impossible to develop an approach that would fit all employees, systems, and tasks.
Therefore, a company’s leader should evaluate all relevant factors and choose the style likely to leverage the staff’s potential and talent and establish the needed relationships (Weiss, 2019). Depending on the objectives and other characteristics of the firm, its leader might want to adapt to the needs and behaviors of the workers. For example, suppose the staff members have informal relationships and are a major part of decision-making. In that case, a new leader will not be successful if he focuses on authoritarianism and strict control.
Defining the Three Styles
Further, providing the definitions for the three styles can allow us to understand them better and determine their strengths and weaknesses. Weiss (2019) indicates that transformational and transactional approaches are often interrelated, and a leader with the former style can also demonstrate the latter’s features. Transformational leadership is defined as “a style in which a leader seeks to change and engage followers and the organization by creating a compelling vision, strategy, and culture” (Weiss, 2019, para. 5.2).
Further, the transactional approach toward leading mostly uses financial rewards or punishments and is highly task- and performance-oriented. The third style to discuss in this paper is servant leadership. According to Tait (2020) and Schwantes (2016), this is a non-traditional method that shifts the leader’s focus from the company’s overall success toward the well-being and prosperity of employees. Undoubtedly, all these views on guiding and leading businesses are efficient and deserve attention because the areas and concepts they prioritize are essential.
The Main Differences Between the Styles
One needs to compare and contrast their key characteristics to better understand these approaches’ differences. As Weiss (2019) indicates, servant leaders are guided by their inner sense of right and wrong. Their perspectives and actions might be described as “enduring” instead of “working” (para. 2.8). Such leaders always place service before self-interest, establish relationships through trust and inspiration, and practice active listening (Schwantes, 2016; Tait, 2020). This highly ethical style is based on championing the followers and helping them whenever possible.
Unlike transformational and transactional leaders, servants are not focused on achieving better results; instead, they sacrifice themselves for the development of their employees, which is their ultimate goal. Although transformative leaders also use trust and inspiration to maintain good connections with their staff and motivate them, the primary objective is to give them a common goal and achieve it (Michigan State University, 2021). Except for servant leadership, the two styles emphasize the leaders and their interests, with human resources as the main means of achieving their purposes (Tait, 2020). For a transactional leader, extrinsic motivation instead of inspiration, vision, or trust is the best way to make employees meet their objectives (Michigan State University, 2021). Lastly, servant and transformational leaders are more responsive to the needs of the staff, though for different purposes.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Approaches
All these methods of leadership have specific strengths and weaknesses. For example, the key advantage of the transactional style is that it is the best in maximizing performance and operational efficiency because the motivators used are quite helpful. However, it can “fall short in the areas of innovation, long-term strategy creation, and employee development” (Michigan State University, 2021, para. 23).
Secondly, transformational leadership fosters organizational change, so if the business needs to modify its systems and operations, this approach is best to manage the transition. The main downside of the transformational method of leading is that it requires a very motivated and passionate leader (Michigan State University, 2021). Lastly, servant leadership allows for the achievement of great results in an ethical manner because appreciated, valued, and supported employees are eager to develop the organization (Tait, 2020). Unfortunately, this approach does not work well if the leader cares about the staff using unethical methods or behaves immorally.
Discussing Different Situations
Based on the differences between the approaches and their unique strengths and weaknesses, it is evident that they can work well or fail in various scenarios. For instance, if the firm has recently hired many new employees who are not loyal yet and face a challenge that requires fast decision-making and urgent action, servant leaders will likely fail to establish their authority over the team (Tait, 2020). However, if workers cannot express themselves or show creativity and lack development opportunities, servant leader can leverage their potential, address their needs, and improve employee satisfaction.
Further, if many employees in the firm value appreciation and feedback over financial rewards, leaders using transactional leadership might need to engage these workers and make them productive. When leaders and managers have to “plan, schedule, control, and work with subordinates on detailed tasks,” this approach is the most effective (Weiss, 2019, para. 5.1). Eventually, in case the company needs to adopt more innovative ways to prosper and gain competitive advantage, transformational leaders are the first and most successful at finding the best options and motivating their staff (Michigan State University, 2021). Nevertheless, this method fails when the teams and workers are dispersed because they do not have close and trusting relationships with their leader.
Conclusion
To conclude, only some universal or most efficient leadership styles would be practical and successful in all scenarios and for all employees. Servant leadership means the leader is devoted to their workers; while it leverages creativity and loyalty, it might sometimes lack authority and influence. The transactional style uses financial and other rewards and punishments to motivate the staff, and the key disadvantage of this method is that there needs to be more focus on employee development. Lastly, transformational leadership addresses the needs and interests of the workers but focuses mainly on the gains of the company and the leaders themselves.
References
Michigan State University. (2021). Transactional vs. transformational leadership: What’s the difference? Web.
Schwantes, M. (2016). 10 compelling reasons servant leadership may be the best, says science. Inc. Web.
Tait, B. (2020). Traditional leadership vs. servant leadership. Forbes. Web.
Weiss, J. W. (2019). An introduction to leadership (2nd ed.). Bridgepoint Education.