Transformational Leadership

The Social-Psychological Influence of Transformational Leadership

Abstract

Like most other leadership models, the conceptual model of transformational leadership has been defined at length and explored in depth from a practical business-managerial perspective. There remains much to be gained, however (for business mangers and social psychologists alike), in analyzing leadership from a social-psychological viewpoint as well. That is, managers stand to benefit from staying abreast of the principles and research findings of social psychology, and applying them to the activity of leadership. This paper will show that truly transformational leadership—on this view, effective or “real” leadership—is not a mere trait, or title, or theory, but a highly fruitful process of influencing people by addressing legitimate psychological needs. As opposed to demagogical- or pseudo-leadership, effective transformational leadership is ultimately about followers rather than leaders.

The Social-Psychological Influence of Transformational Leadership

More than perhaps any business management-related area of study, the concept of leadership is subject to misunderstanding, if not mysticism. The shelves of bookstores are lined with popular treatments of the “mystique” of leadership and the “art” of leadership—often including a huge list of qualifications and drawing from the inspiring and noteworthy (but culturally and historically detached) examples of Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, even Napoleon Bonaparte and Attila the Hun. One comes away from a study of the subject with the impression that but a tiny and almost supernaturally talented minority really “have what it takes” to effectively lead others. This is an unfortunate mischaracterization of leadership, as research from the field of social psychology, and this paper, will demonstrate.

Leadership in a Social-Psychological Context

Textbook definitions of leadership are legion, but in recent years most have moved beyond the static confines of the above-mentioned “classic trait approach” (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2002; Moorhead & Griffin, 2001). Indeed, researchers have come to recognize the distinctive social and psychological aspects of leadership influence (Brehm, et al, 2002). In comparing military and business contexts, Popper (1996) defines leadership as “a central phenomenon in the social psychology of groups and organizations” (¶ 5). Nowadays, leadership theory is more socially oriented, and generally can be distilled into a handful of concepts that reveal a profound theoretical dichotomy between two approaches in dealing with followers: the hard-driving, “just get it done” style and the more personally attentive, “touchy-feely” style.

This rough dichotomy is detectable within Douglas McGregor’s theoretical framework in which managers conform to the expectations of either “Theory X” (rational and mechanistic) or “Theory Y” (holistic and humanistic) approaches to management (Moorhead & Griffin, 2001; Peters & Waterman, 1982). The same distinction is further exemplified in Fred Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership, contrasting leaders who are task oriented with those who are more relations oriented (Brehm, et al, 2002; Moorhead & Griffin, 2001).

Leadership theory appears to have again lent itself to a two-level treatment in more recent discussions of transactional and transformational leadership. According to the transactional theory, leadership “is seen as a two-way social exchange in which there is mutual and reciprocal influence between a leader and his or her followers” (Brehm, et al, 2002, p. 486). The leader sets goals and promises rewards, up to and including the meeting of basic psychological needs, upon fulfillment of the goals. Bryant (2003) notes that the “you scratch my back” sort of give-and-take in this style of leadership is “essentially an economic transaction” (¶ 29). In contrast, transformational leadership is a process by which the follower is motivated to transcend status quo arrangements and immediate personal needs or expectations through a leader’s vision and inspiration (Brehm, et al, 2002; Moorhead & Griffin, 2001; Bryant, 2003).

Influences of Transformational Leadership on Motivation

Leadership rightly understood is inextricably linked to human motivation; it is “motivating people to perform tasks to the best of their ability” (Popper, 1996, ¶ 1). Empirical studies have supported the transformational premise that “inspiration is a more powerful motivator than reward” (Brehm, el al, 2002, p. 487). Whereas transactional leadership appeals to measurable extrinsic motives (pay, promotion, accountability to a supervisor, meeting deadlines), the transformational leader seeks to touch the more personal psychological drives or intrinsic motives. Again, research supports the paradoxical conclusion implied by transformational theory, that strictly extrinsic rewards can devalue intrinsic motives (Brehm, et al, 2002).

From another perspective, transformational leaders are those most adept at meeting the highest psychological needs of people. On Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs, for example, psychological categories at the top addressed by transformational leaders—needs for self-actualization, esteem and belongingness—are generally regarded as more elusive than the physiological and security needs promised by the transactional leader. However, the sense of priority can change with specific contexts (as Maslow himself noted), of which an effective leader will thus be aware (Popper, 1996). In an active military context, for example, the need for security is paramount and a good leader will therefore strive above all else to protect those under his/her command (Wofford, Whittington & Goodwin, 2001). In a business context, however, transformational leadership inspires excellence by appealing to what are perceived as greater, loftier psychological needs—such as a sense of meaning in life, intellectual growth, legitimate moral causes, healthy interpersonal relationships, and a vision for the future.

Whereas evidence suggests that transformational leadership is not a universal prescription (Wofford, et al, 2001), it is likely to become a more popular and applicable approach as the trend continues away from a standardized mass-production economy to a knowledge-based economy. Bryant (2003) observes that the transformational leadership style is particularly appropriate for knowledge workers, who typically are involved in complex job functions and exhibit high levels of intellectual development and self-motivation.

Legitimate Transformational Leadership and Transformed Followership

Because the transformational leader is attuned to the highest instincts and motives of followers, it may be said that the followers actually determine in large part the leader’s style and agenda. As much as leaders, followers alike typically have quite valid longings, as individuals, to achieve and excel. Transformational leadership simply appeals to those longings. For this reason, recent research has indicated not only that leadership is situationally determined, but that the particular motives of followers constitute situational moderators for the leader (Wofford, et al, 2001). In other words, leaders do not simply “lead,” but in a sense they also follow—by following the legitimate motivational cues of their “followers.”

This presumed motivational legitimacy on the part of the follower is critical for the leader to bear in mind, for it is what separates transformational leaders from what some have called “pseudo-transformational leaders,” or “those who appeal to emotions rather than reason and manipulate ignorant followers to further their own personal interests” (Brehm, el al, 2002, p. 487). In other words, unlike dictators or demagogues, genuine transformational leaders know their people, are concerned about the legitimate needs that most concern them, and therefore promulgate a vision that fulfills their highest interests.

Conclusion

In light of current research and current economic trends, the adoption of transformational leadership as a working model for business leaders should prove highly effective in this and future decades. Social psychology is a key field of study in the ongoing development of the transformational leadership model, especially in understanding and tapping into the legitimate motives of followers. Leadership itself has been explained as a psychological attribution—of knowledge, expertise, and generally, “the ability to ‘make sense of things’ in chaotic environments” from the follower to the leader (Popper, 1996, ¶ 11). In keeping with the sentiments expressed here, Popper (1996) concludes: “The literature on leadership deals extensively with the issue of the leader’s influence in generalized and monolithic terms. There is insufficient consideration of the psychological conditions-resulting from the organizational context- which significantly affect the leader’s impact” (¶ 14). Just as a transformational leader’s legitimacy is tied in with the legitimate motives of people who follow, so a transformational leader’s ongoing knowledge depends on an ongoing knowledge of those motives.

References

Brehm, S. S., Kassin, S. M., & Fein, S. (2002). Social Psychology (5^th Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Bryant, S. E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 32. Retrieved December 12, 2003 from Proquest database.

Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. W. (2001). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations (6^th Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. Jr. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies. New York: Harper & Row.

Popper, M. (1996). Leadership in military combat units and business organizations: A comparative psychological analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11, 15. Retrieved December 15, 2003 from Proquest database.

Wofford, J. C., Whittington, J. L., & Goodwin, V. L. (2001). Follower motive patterns as situational moderators for transformational leadership effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 196-211. Retrieved December 15, 2003 from Proquest database.