PRESENTED
BY
LINUS UCHE
Abstract
This research work examined the effectiveness of transformational
leadership and also discussed some criticism and weaknesses that face
transformational leadership. Transformational leadership has been found to be
only theory of leadership that is multi-dimension in nature. It comprise of
four major component: Idealise influence, intellectual simulation, individual
consideration, inspirational motivation. It is observed that transformational
leadership style cannot function effectively without the attribute of other
theories.
Table of Contents
1.Introduction
Effectiveness of leadership has become global
phenomenal confronting todays’ business performance of organisations, this has
prompted the idea or question of what makes a good leaders. To answer this
question, many scholars have engaged in search of more information in order to
identify ways, which leaders can be effective. Despite this interest in
leadership, there is no generally acceptable definition of leadership, rather
scholars defined leadership based on individual perceptions. Peter (2010)
believed that, leadership is a process of influencing group of people to attain
a specific goals. “Leadership has been defined as traits, behaviours,
influence, communication style, role relationships, and occupation of an
administrative position”(Gary, 2013).
Leadership is the act or process of an individual to
influence, organise, direct, and control the behaviour of a specific group of
people toward the achievement of organisational goals (Dinh, Lord, Gardner,
Meuser, Liden & Hu, 2014). This implies that, leadership comprises of
shared influence process in which a leader directs behaviours of people towards
certain goals (Tourish,2014). However, Joyce (2015) defined leadership as a
process whereby deliberate influence is utilised to guide, structure and foster
behaviours and relationships of group of
the people to achieve a common goals.
Even with number of ways in which this concept has
been conceptualised, Northouse(2013) the following components can be seen as
major phenomenon such as: Leadership as a
process; means that leader is
not a trait but a process it can be affects and is influenced by subordinate, Leadership engages influence; this explicit how leader affects followers, note
influence is the important of leadership, without it leadership cannot be
effective, Leadership
happen in a group; Groups is a
setting in which leadership occur, and Leadership
entail common goals; main role of
leadership is the act of influencing group of people to achieve common goals.
Furthermore, Alberto
(2016) argued that, “world of leadership theories seems very confusing and
complicated” due to introduction of new theories nearly every year, and it is generating
more problematic to understand clear picture of leadership theories. Though,
leadership theories can be categorised as; theories oriented to the leader as
individual and theories oriented to the relations between leader and followers (Alberto
et al, 2015).
Trait Theories: An implicit idea of this theory is that leaders are
potentially born and it stresses that people with potential qualities are
qualified to be leaders. It is also known as great man theory in the early 20th
century. This theory believes that specific innate traits are collective to
leaders (Colbert, Judge, Choi & Wang,2012). Shriberg and Shriberg (2011),
in their book described several qualities of trait theory such; Intelligence,
self-confidence, determination, Integrity and sociability etc. Thus, this
theory is not effective in today challenging organisation but some of it
qualities are still needed in organisation.
Behavioural
Theory: This theory is on belief that
good leaders are made, not born. It also concentrates on the actions of
individuals not on personality qualities or internal statuses (Amanchukwu, Stanley,&
Ololube,2015). The pioneers of this theory suggested that, leadership is a
process in which people undergo certain training and observation to be a great
leader. Lewin and Lippit (1938) argued that, this theory represents a move from
trait theory to build capabilities of individuals through behavioural change. Basically, Kurt Lewin suggested that, the most effective features that decides leaders adoption of leadership style is the need to make good decision. In 1939 he propounded three styles of leadership, eg
Autocratic Leadership: In this type of leadership, organisational leaders make decisions themselves. They do not give their followers opportunity to involve in decision-marking process. This leaders are task-oriented. their major aims is to achieve organisational goals.
Democratic or Participative Leadership: This style of leadership allows followers to participate in organisational decision-making. Leaders perform an active role in the decision-making, on that note they values follower ideas for the success of a group. Democratic leaders can also categories as relationship-oriented leader.
Laissez-fair Leadership: Leaders do not participate in decision-making process, he or she allow followers to do whatever they know. This kind of leadership style is applicable especially when followers are competence and motivated to perform their duty. Note Kurt Lewin's leadership styles are under behavioural theory.
Contingency
Theory: Fiedler contingency theory
explicit that successful leadership does not only depends on the leadership
style but on the ability of a leader to manage over a specific situation.
Specific behaviour does not decide effective leadership, hence leadership style
should be suitable to the condition (Fiedler, 1954). Mary, Ronald, Kevin &
Melissa, (2014) supported this view, stated that leaders are required to engage
followers in decision-making processes, but it depends on certain
circumstances.
1.2. Theories
Oriented to the Relationship Between Leader and Followers.
Transformational
Leadership: This theory was
propounded by Burns in 1978, he described leadership as transactional and
transformational but he underlined transformational theory as the most relevant
leadership approach (Avolio,& Yammarino,2013). According to Banks,
McCauley, Gardner & Guler (2016), it explains how leaders solicit to attain
higher order desires of subordinates. Transformational leadership
characteristic comprises of employee-oriented element, which includes
charismatic, neo-charismatic, inspirational and visionary leadership (Winkler,
2009, Tyssen, Wald & Spieth, 2104).
Servant
Leadership: This theory assumed
that for a leader to be effective in organisation, he must see himself as a
servant leader (Greenleaf, 1977). Servant leadership means the need from
leaders to motivate, direct, and generate concern by creating good relationship
with followers (Liden, Wayne, Liao & Meuser,2014). According to Ehrtart (2004)
there are 2 main construct of servant leader such as; ethical behaviour and
concern for followers.
Shared
Leadership: The founder of
this theory believes that, leadership is dynamic, and it requires communicative
influence process between groups in order to direct everyone to the
accomplishment of both individuals and organisation missions (Pearce &
Conger, 2004). In the sense that, shared leadership performance is not only
based on the leader, but carried out as a teamwork role, as the team unite
together toward specified objectives (Houghton, Pearce, Manz, Courtright &
Stewart,2015). Having identified and briefly explained few of leadership
theories. This framework will further concentrate on critical evaluation of
transformational leadership approach as bellow.
2.Transformational
Leadership Approach
The benefits of the organisation and its employees
require to be aligned. Such is a functions of transformational leadership (Bass,1999).
Transformational leadership “stimulate and inspire followers to extraordinary
outcomes and in the process of developing their own leadership
ability”(Burn,1978). Bass (1985) enhanced these assumptions into a deeper
appreciation of transformational leadership and further suggested that, it is a
process of changing how followers feel about themselves which in turn improve
their motivation and enable them to increase performance.
In support of
this view Bass and Ronald (1999) stressed that, it assists followers to gain
leadership capacity by focusing on individuals needs in empowering them by affiliating
both the goals and objectives of followers, leaders and the larger
organisation. Some evident in recent research have shown that, transformation
leadership can motivate individual to perform more than expected and as well
result to higher commitment to group and organisation.
Moreover, Burns conceptualised leadership as either
transactional or transformational. Transactional leader is the one who “lead through
social exchange” (Bass et al, 1995). Transactional leadership focused on a
leader-follower exchange relationship, where the follower is rewarded in return
for fulfilment with leader’s anticipation (Girma,2016). For instance,
politicians lead by exchanging one thing for another: employments for votes.
Equal to business leaders, as they offer financial rewards for work well done
and punishment for unproductivity (Afsar, Badir, Saeed & Hafeez,2017). Its
main objectives is to attain organisational goals through exchange of services
of each subordinate.
It also consists of constitutive sub-dimension, which
includes: contingent reward, management by exception and laissez-fair. “The
level of effectiveness of these behaviours is linked to the level of passivity
and therefore the dimension associated with transformational leadership are
seen as the most effective, followed by those associated with transactional
leadership” (Doris et al,2014). But the last dimension is being as the most
inactive behaviour of transactional leadership.
Although, more evidence has accumulated that most
researchers have graded transformational leadership higher than other
leadership approaches. Due to its positive impact in both followers and
organisational performance (Birasnav,2014). Transformational leadership evoke
change in followers values system to match them with organisational objectives (Clarke
2013, Goh 2017). In addition to this, empirical evident of Adriani, Budi &
Sutristno (2015) has confirmed that, “there is direct effect of the positive
and significant correlation between transformational leadership on employee’s
working performance”.
Transformational leadership does not only promote
employees performance but also justify how change is executed within
organisation (Robin, 2017). Robin et al (2017) fortified this trend, by
concluding in his framework that, transformational leaders accomplish stated
objectives by formulating a vision, encourage the recognition of group targets,
and offering individualised support. This seems to be clear evidence that, it
focuses on what leaders achieve, instead of personal attributes and
subordinate’s reactions (Robert2001). This also align with what, Bass et al (1999)
argued in their book that, transformational leaders motivate subordinates to
act further than expected. Ideally, performance is achieved by transformational
leaders as they often set more challenging goals to followers.
However, transformational leadership engages followers
to shared vision and make them more innovative problem solvers, enhancing
followers leadership ability through monitoring and as well generating both
challenge and support ( Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003, Bass &
Riggio 2006). The findings of Gumusluoglu
& IIsev, (2009) resulted that, transformational leadership has imperative
effect on creativity at both the individual and organisation levels. In the
light of this it has great and direct effect on knowledge management process
and organisational operation (Birasnav, 2014).
Advance social science believed that, leadership
focused on the different directive like: task oriented and relationship
oriented. Whereas “transformational leadership can be directive or
participative not and either or proposition” (Bass et al, 2006). Although “transformational
leadership has much in common with charismatic leadership but charismatic
leadership is only part of transformational leadership”(Jay & Rabindra,
1998). David (2009) articulated that, charismatic leadership is the capacity of
a leader to control followers with kind of supernatural gift and attractive
power. Leadership researchers who examined charismatic leadership identified
that, it is based on individual characteristic not a single trait (Gebert,
Heinitz, & Buengeler, 2016).
The augment proceed as Haroro (2016) confirmed that,
charismatic leadership, is not a process or by experience. That is to agreed
that, charisma is attribute few leader possess. Bass and his group concluded
that, “charismatic leaders who use their abilities to inspire and lead
followers to destructive, selfish and even evil ends”. For instance Aldolf
Hitler, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin and Osama Bin Laden. “These leaders are those who
can be called pseudo transformational” (Bass et al, 2006). This implies that,
they acquired many features of transformational leadership specifically
personal, and exploitative purposes. Practically,
in the organisational context transformational leaders foster followers
creativity, mediated through their creative self-efficacy (Mittal & Dhar,
2015). It also thrives in the period of uncertainty, which is important to
temporary organisations (Tyssen et al,2014).
Additionally, assessment that was vital to
transformational leadership was put into practice by Podsakoff, Mackenzie,
Moorman & Fetter(1990) using transformational leadership inventory.
According to them, transformational leadership is the only theory that was
multi-dimensional in nature. These findings aligned with Bass’s work, as they
“identified and developed measures for six behaviours known to be associated
with transformational leadership”(Alan, David, Keith, & Mary, 2011) which
include the following:
2.1. Identifying and Articulating Vision:
transformational leaders motivates followers with a shared vision for future
motives (Edward,2012). In the light of this Alan et al, (2011) agreed that, the
behavioural attribute of transformational leader is to identify new
opportunities for followers, develop and inspire them with his idea for future.
2.2. Lead by Example: Transformational
leaders control his subordinate by setting example for followers to adapt that
is stable with the values his/she adopts. It was further argued that, leaders
who act as a role model and whom subordinates seek to imitate, have a very
great standards of behaviour, moral ideologies and ethical values (Aronson,
2001, Paul & Barbara, 2017).
2.3. Fostering the Concept of Group
Goals: Teamwork is one of the major attribute of
transformational leadership approach. It aims to promote collaboration among
workers and get them to work as a team in order to attain a common goals (Hilen,
Pfaff,& Hammer, 2017). Research has indeed indicated that, transformational
leadership has impacted group creativity mostly through its effect on team
knowledge sharing (Dong, Bartol, Zhang & Li, 2017).
2.4. High Performance Expectation: Alan et at (2011)
stressed that, transformational leaders demonstrate high expectations for excellence
and quality on part of workers. This assumption stipulates that, the actions of
transforming leaders have positive influence on staffs working performance, job
satisfaction and feelings of trust and respect to leader (Montano, Reeske,
Franke & Huffmeier,2017).
2.5. Providing Individualised Support: This
behaviour, shows that transformational leaders respect individual feelings and
difference. It does not only have direct impact on organisation but as well
affects worker in organisation on individual feeling, they show concern and
empower staff in the organisation (Martin, 2017).
2.6. Intellectual Challenging: “it
challenges followers to re-examine some of their assumption about their work
and rethink how it can be performed”(Podsakoff et al, 1990, Alan et al, 2011).
Edward (2012) concluded that, when these behaviours
explored by transformational leaders, subordinate will observe that their
interests are fundamental and that the organisation relied not only their
bodies but also minds and skills. In fact, this improves followers motivation
to an extent of self-actualise, as they recognise their desires for recognition
and gratitude as individuals come first. “Charismatic leader similar to
transformational leaders, could participate in deceptive practices of
transformational leadership, but with different motives (Edward, 2012).
According to Weber (1968), followers of charismatic
leader freely place their future on their leader’s hands and support his
mission. He concluded that, the core of charisma is an emotional appeal whose
behaviours is revolutionary. Consequently, transformational leadership
behaviours varies depending on the nature of jobs requirement(Breevaart &
Bakker, 2017). Notwithstanding, Dvir, Avolio & Shamir(2002) tested the
impact of transformational leadership follower development and performance,
using a sample of 54 military leaders and their 90 followers. The findings
indicate “the leaders in transformational leadership training group had more
positive impact on direct follower’s development. It seems to be obvious that,
transforming leadership concerned on transcendent and far-reaching objectives.
This creates high effect on followers and collectives, rather than
transactional style (Burns, 1978).
Bruce,& Avolio (2013) argued that,
transformational style can be practiced as a groundwork to integrate other
leadership styles. In addition, Burns stated in his 1st edition book
that transformational leaders create awareness of moral and ethical effects to
followers, as well inspire them to transcend their personal interest for that
of higher good. Extending this view Bass (1985) documented that,
transformational leadership act as change agent by awakening and transforming
subordinates behaviour, confidence and aims from lower to higher degree of
arousal. In contrast, transactional leaders specified role and task demand with
direct and indirect reward contingent on successful performance (Bruce et al,2013).
Though, in comparison to Burns, Bass debated that,
transactional style is a crucial necessity for effective leadership and leaders
required to display both transformational and transactional leadership
characteristics to specific level (Bruce et al,2013). Yet “Transformational
theory yields superior performance when augmenting transactional leadership,
referred to as augmentation hypothesis”(Bass,1985). Bass (1998) and Bruce &
Avolio (2013), identified the different components of transformational
leadership. The four components which Avolio and his group known as “a higher
order construct of transformational leadership include the following”:
3. Components
of Transformational Leadership
3.1. Idealised Influence: Transformational
leaders are cherished, reliable and respected. Their followers recognised with
and desire to be like them(Bass et al, 2003). Findings from empirical study
have confirmed that, these leaders attract their subordinates by considering their
needs over his/her own needs (Aga, Noorderhaven & Vallejo, 2016). This
assumes that, leaders who have great impact of “idealised Influence are able to
take risk and are dependable rather than arbitrary (Ling & Ling,2016). Consequently,
results from survey research based on
conceptual framework on transformational leadership and worker commitment,
indicates the importance for leadership development of organisational leaders
to assimilate transformational leadership attributes that are essential in changing
staffs’ behaviour and enhancing their commitment (Ling et al,2016).
3.2. Inspirational Motivation: Organisational
leaders with inspirational motivation support teamwork to attain goals of
improved revenue and market increase for his organisation. This was validated
as Gibert, Horsman & Kelloway(2016) identified in their project that, team building contributed to the effect of
transformational leadership on project success. Importantly, transformational
leadership develop and communicate appealing vision with “symbols and images”
to concentrates the efforts of followers that are considered suitable (Samson,2016-p38).
These leaders act in a way that motivate and inspire his or her subordinates by
presenting meaning and challenges at work (Doris & Gareth, 2014).
3.3. Individual Consideration: According to Doris et al (2014)
transformational leaders show special concern to each worker’s wants for
accomplishment and growth by behaving as a mentor. With practical evident that
support this fact, John, Shannon, Allen & Kepner (2016) stated that,
organisational leaders with individual consideration support associates to
achieve objectives that assist both groups and organisation. This action is
carried out by recognising individuals basic needs and desires. Thus,
transformational leaders behaviours display “acceptance of individual
difference”(Ling et al,2016). Recent research has identified that,
transformational and consideration style are both suggested to be incorporated
into management couching and development programme (Warit, Kriengsak, Rodney,
2017).
3.4. Intellectual Stimulation: According to
Doris et al (2014) transformational leaders lead to encourage innovation and
creativity by involving followers in challenging activities that would
stimulate new ideas and solve problem. These leaders motivate their followers
to try new methods without criticising their ideas even if they are different from the leaders’ ideas. Similarly, this approach
empirically confirmed by researchers that, it boost fresh knowledge and operate
by inspiring followers with self-sufficiency and decision for innovation to
occur (Wait et al, 2017).
Therefore, each of the component stated above illustrates
features that are vital to the transformational practice. John et al (2016),
argued that, managers who are great “role model” supporters, innovators, instructors
are those who are using full components to assist transform their organisation
for a better, efficient and effective performance. Though one of the most
imperative version that provides the most research is the full types of
leadership model (Bass et al,2003 & Avolio et al, 2013). This encompasses
the dimensions such as: laissez-fair, transactional and transformational
leadership. Furthermore, Bass(1999) believed that each of these dimensions are
part of four components of transformational style.
Drawing back to original distinctions by Burns’
conceptual meaning of transactional and transformational leadership, is represented on the belief that,
a leaders could be either transactional or transformational. Perhaps Bass
conceptualised that, the two models could operate either together or separately
(Marian, & Christopher,2014). Moreover, adopting both styles of leadership,
from practical viewpoint leaders influence organisational effectiveness through
activities that involve the internal and external organisational context (Morgeson,
DeRue & Karem, 2010, Antonakis, & House,2014). In spite of that,
transformational style absorbs a social exchange that is unusual from “any
material or economic exchange involved in transactional leadership” (zhu, &
Akhtar,2014).
In order to measure transformational and transactional
behaviour Bass established MLQ. The influence of transformational style and the
connection between transformational and transactional leadership was
investigated (Maria,2014). Transformational theory was evaluated using
inspiration, intellectual and individual consideration. On the other hand, transactional was examined
by contingent reward, management by exception (Muenjohn, & Armstrong,2015).
According to Maria (2014) it resulted that, both leadership styles have a
strong direct relationship, arguing that, these styles of leadership should not
be seen as “independent variables”. “Transformational was found to have direct
effect on organisation while workers were influenced directly and positively by
transactional style”. In sense that, transformational leadership cannot be more
effective in organisation without the attribute of transactional leadership. In
the light of this, it is essential to draw some focus on the criticisms that
has been faced by this theory.
4.
Criticism/Weaknesses of Transformational Leadership Theory
Findings from scholars have indicated that
transformational leadership has positively affected organisational performance,
enhanced its work productivity, and creativities. Due to uncertainty of today’s business environment,
transformational seems to be the kind of leaders that is required for an
organisation to succeed. But the possibility of getting these types of leaders
who know everything is rare. It is very difficult to be educated or trained as
a transformational leader, as its components are extremely comprehensive (David,2009).
This is because, the dynamic charismatic components of the transformational
leadership are complex to conceptualise and determine (Northouse,2010). For
example, charismatic leadership has been demonstrated by examples of
charismatic leader in term of process but changes that occur among charismatic
leaders and its followers are not clarify. Also, Norethouse (2013) stated that,
transformational approach comprise series of activities and features such like:
“creating a vision, motivating, being a changes agent, building trust, and
giving” nurturance; it is hard to clarify exactly the limits of
transformational leadership.
Moreover, insufficient identification of negative
impact, has been the major weakness of this theory because it does not provide
any midst for criticism of itself. In essence of that Kathryn(2011) stated
that, “there is no explicit part of transformational theory that identifies a
situation where its attributes is detrimental”. For instance, the functions of
leadership in improving motivation and operation can be unfair towards
organisation at expensive of workers (Kathryn,2011). Furthermore, Bass argued
that, transformational leaders could be in two fold as: transactional
concentrate more on organisational management than to leadership, whereas transformational “over-emphasis
the role of the leader in the change process”(Roger,2011). In fact, focusing on
transformational theory without transactional part is too narrow.
In spite of this criticism, nowadays organisations are in a continuous change process in order to meet competitive
advantages. Therefore, transformational style seems to be more essential leadership
than other theories (Frank & Jeffrey,2009). Empirically Bombers, Rich &
Robin (2005) identified that, “long-term social networks influence within
organisations” are better improved for transformational leadership than other
theories. Though, it could be the reason why, transformational leaders may be
more appropriate at organisational change process, since massive change demand
extremely support from individuals staffs (Frank,et al,2009).
Additionally, since transformational leadership is
merely focused with changing organisations, including employees values and
taking them to a new vision. Nevertheless, who will ascertain if the new
directions are suitable, more efficient and effectively to the proposed
organisation (Northhouse, 2011). This is because there is no assumption that
every transformational leaders will know the most effective way of changing
organisational , neither peoples’ values.
Moreover, literature has explained some assumption
that, charismatic and transformational leadership are seen as ideals of
effective leadership but there are series of evident that charismatic leaders
who are “dictators, despots, and head of dangerous and deadly cults” (David,2014).
This on other hand, represent transformational theory as
“pseudo-transformational leaders”. Certainly, this prompted the introduction of
authentic leadership, Avolio & Gardner, (2005) and David, (2014) in order
to concentrate on only positive “forms of leadership”. In the light of this
trend, it is obvious that, theory and investigation on both charismatic and
transformational leadership require to clearly explain and differentiate the
positive and negative forms of transformational style.
Finally, one of most important criticism of
transformational leadership is that leaders fail to admit the reciprocal impact
of the “follower-leader-relationship or the concept of shared leadership” (Skipton,
Rachel, Arthur, Jonathan, & John 2016).
Present studies states that, this theory is connected with “contingent reward” (Knippenbery
& Sitkin, 2013, Skipton et al, 2017). In order to fortified this, Menon (2014)
argued that MLQ model “was the one in which contingent reward was loaded on the
transformational factor, or on the transactional”. This consequently, presents
the fact that, transformational leadership is highly correlated with other
theories of leadership like: “participative leadership, ethical leadership, and
leader member and as well exchange” (Skipton et al, 2017). That is why, Yuki (2013)
advocated that, all transformational leadership behaviour involves distinct
dimension, which makes its meaning ambiguous.
5. Conclusion
Transformational leadership has been described as the
central and most influential leadership theory in the context of organisational
sectors. It concentrates on motivating and inspiring employees to commit and
prompt them to a shared vision and goals
for an organisation as well fostering them to be more innovative.
Transformational leadership prompt followers to identify the vital and value of
their work and make to transcend personal interest to organisational goals. It
improves workers knowledge and confidence in order to be competent to their
responsibility. It also generate support and encourage its followers to
maintain enthusiasm and effort to control difficult situation.
Originally, formulation of this theory is categorised
into two: Transactional leadership,
defines leadership as exchange process, for example “honesty, fairness,
responsibility and reciprocity”. It is on believed that this styles can be used
together or separately. Bass and his group formulated three “component
dimension-transformational leadership, transactional leadership and
laissez-fair”. They are on the assumption that each of these components is on
sub-dimension of transformational leadership: charisma or idealise influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulate and individual consideration.
Whereas, transactional style has sub-dimension as: contingent reward, management
by exception and laissez-fair.
The aforementioned illustrates transformational theory as a body including
all the leadership approaches which are uncertain to explicit its parameters.
Having said that, it also draws back to “trait theory" which comprises
certain qualities as transformational style. Furthermore, the outcome of this
research has created a clear picture that there is no generally acceptable
theory that can effectively control organisational circumstance. Therefore, it is
imperative for any specific leader to be flexible: in the sense that, be able
to identify his or her present situation in order to determine the leadership
principle to adopt: contingence, trait, behavioural and participative
leadership etc. Can be appropriated in organisation .
For instance, transformational theory can be used to
train new employees during recruitment, selection and promotion of staff. Can
be applicable in organisational change process. Note change is inevitable, so
as human being cannot be predicted. In that sense leaders should always match
his or her leadership theory to the situation in which they found themselves.
6. Reference
Alberto, S.(2015). An integrated leadership theory.
Journal of perspectives in organisational behaviour, management and leadership,
1. 5-9.
Afsar, B., Badir, Y. F., Saeed, B. B., & Hafeez,
S. (2017). Transformational and transactional leadership and employee’s
entrepreneurial behaviour in knowledge–intensive industries. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(2), 307-332.
Aga, D. A., Noorderhaven, N., & Vallejo, B.
(2016). Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of
team-building. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 806-818.
Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2014). Instrumental
leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional
leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 746-771.
Adriani, K, Budi, S, and Sutrisno (2015). The effect
of transformational leadership and organisational culture on employee’s work
performance through organisation commitment. 13(7), 5305-5322. www.serialsjournals.com
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.). (2013). Introduction to, and overview of,
transformational and charismatic leadership. In Transformational and
Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead 10th Anniversary Edition (pp.
xxvii-xxxiii). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Amanchukwu, R. N., Stanley, G. J., & Ololube, N.
P. (2015). A review of leadership theories, principles and styles and their
relevance to educational management. Management, 5(1), 6-14.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006).
Transformational leadership. Psychology Press. 2nd edn, USA.
Bass, B,M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expectation. The free press, New York.
Burn, J, M.(1978). Leadership, 1st edn , Harper &
Row publisher, USA.
Breevaart, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2017). Daily Job
Demands and Employee Work Engagement: The Role of Daily Transformational
Leadership Behaviour. Journal of occupational health psychology.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and
development in transformational leadership. European journal of work and
organizational psychology, 8(1), 9-32.
Birasnav, M. (2014). Knowledge management and
organizational performance in the service industry: The role of
transformational leadership beyond the effects of transactional leadership.
Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1622-1629.
Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., &
Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational
leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 634-652.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson,
Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and
transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 207.
Bruce, J, & Francis, J.(2013). Transformational
and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. 2nd edn, Emerald group publisher ltd,
UK.
Colbert, A. E.,
Judge, T. A., Choi, D., & Wang, G. (2012). Assessing the trait theory of
leadership using self and observer ratings of personality: The mediating role
of contributions to group success. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 670-685.
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J.
D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the
new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The
Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36-62.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B.
(2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and
performance: A field experiment. Academy of management journal, 45(4), 735-744.
David, I.(2009). Leadership is organisation: there is
a different between leaders and managers. University press of America, USA.
Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Li, C.
(2017). Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team
knowledge sharing: Influences of dual‐focused
transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 38(3),
439-458.
David, V.(2014). The oxford hand book of leadership
and organisational. Oxford university Press.
Edward, J.(2012). Transformational Leadership: Trust,
Motivation and Engagement. 1st edn, Trafford publishing, USA.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural
justice climate as antecedents of unit‐level
organizational citizenship behaviour. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61-94.
Girma, S. (2016). The relationship between leadership
style and employee job satisfaction study of federal and Addis Ababa sport
organizational management setting in Ethiopia. IJAR, 2(3), 92-96.
Frank,J, & Jeffrey, M.(2009). Work in the 21st
century: As introduction to industrial and organisational. 3rd edn, Blackwell
publishing, USA.
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009).
Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal
of business research, 62(4), 461-473.
Goh, Y. (2017). Impact of transformational leadership
on safety culture. Safety and resilience research unite. 1-3.
http://bdg.nus.edu.sg/CPMCL/sarru/
Gebert,
D., Heinitz, K., & Buengeler, C. (2016). Leaders' charismatic leadership and followers' commitment—The moderating
dynamics of value erosion at the societal level. The Leadership Quarterly,
27(1), 98-108.
Gilbert, S., Horsman, P., & Kelloway, E. K.
(2016). The Motivation for Transformational Leadership Scale: An examination of
the factor structure and initial tests. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 37(2), 158-180.
Hillen, H., Pfaff, H., & Hammer, A. (2017). The
Association between transformational leadership in German hospitals and the
frequency of events reported as perceived by medical directors. Journal of Risk
Research, 20(4), 499-515.
Houghton, J. D., Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., Courtright,
S., & Stewart, G. L. (2015). Sharing is caring: Toward a model of proactive
caring through shared leadership. Human Resource Management Review, 25(3),
313-327.
Haroro, J .(2016). The Charismatic Leadership
Phenomenon in Radical and Militant Islamism. Routledge press, UK.
John H, Shannon J, Allen W, and Karl K.(2016).
Transformational leadership: transformation of managers and associates.
https://www.coursehero.com/file/18085770/leadership-ladpdf/A, 1-3.
Joyce, A(2016). Leadership and management roles:
challenges and success of strategies. www.aornjournal.org/content/cme, 104(2),
154-158.
Kathryn, A(2011). Leadership in non-profit
organisation: A reference hand book. Sage publisher, USA.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J.
D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and
unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1434-1452.
Ling, S., & Ling, M. (2016). The influence of
transformational leadership on teacher commitment towards organization, teaching
profession, and student learning in secondary schools in Miri, Sarawak,
Malaysia. EDUCARE, international journal for educational studies, 4(2),
155-178.
Mittal, S., & Dhar, R. L. (2015). Transformational
leadership and employee creativity: mediating role of creative self-efficacy
and moderating role of knowledge sharing. Management Decision, 53(5), 894-910.
Muenjohn, N., & Armstrong, A. (2015).
Transformational leadership: The influence of culture on the leadership
behaviours of expatriate managers. international Journal of Business and
information, 2(2).
Eliophotou Menon, M. (2014). The relationship between
transformational leadership, perceived leader effectiveness and teachers’ job
satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(4), 509-528.
Mary, U, Ronald, E, Kevin, B, & Melissa, K.(2014).
Followership theory: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly,
83-104.
Marian, I, & Christopher, S.(2014). Leadership.
1st , Oxford University Press, UK.
Montano, D., Reeske, A., Franke, F., & Hüffmeier,
J. (2017). Leadership, followers' mental health and job performance in
organizations: A comprehensive meta‐analysis from
an occupational health perspective. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 38(3),
327-350.
Martin, J. (2017). Personal Relationships and
Professional Results: The Positive Impact of Transformational Leaders on
Academic Librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(2), 108-115.
Peter G.(2010) leadership; theory and practice. 5th
edn, Sage Publication, Inc. United Kingdom.
Pearce, C, & Conger, A.(2004). Shared leadership:
Reframing the how’s and whys of leadership. Sage publication Inc. USA.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H.,
& Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviours and their effects
on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviours. The leadership quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Skipton L, Rachel L, Arthur M, Jonathan John.( 2016)
The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Leadership, Change and organisational
development. Hand book of the psychology of leadership.
Shriberg, A, Shriberg, D.(2011). Practicing leadership
principle and application. 4th edn.
Robert, N.(2001). Leadership: theory application
skills development.1st edn, South West college publishing, USA.
Roger, G(2011). Theory and practice of leadership. 2nd
edn, Sage publications. UK
Tourish, D. (2014). Leadership, more or less? A
processual, communication perspective on the role of agency in leadership
theory. Leadership, 10(1), 79-98.
Tyssen, A. K., Wald, A., & Spieth, P. (2014). The
challenge of transactional and transformational leadership in projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 32(3), 365-375.
Zhu, Y., & Akhtar, S. (2014). How transformational
leadership influences follower helping behaviour: The role of trust and
prosocial motivation. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 35(3), 373-392.
Comments