APW assignment
Q. Critically evaluate any one contemporary theory of leadership. When do you think
the concept of leadership is redundant?
Leadership can be defined as a process in which a person tries to influence a set of individuals in the pursuit of
achieving individual, group, and organizational objectives. Effective leaders help groups of people define their goals
and find ways to reach them (Selznick 1957). Compatible with this definition is another definition that states that
leadership is the ability to inspire confidence and support among people who are needed to achieve organizational
goals (Kim and Maubourgne 1992). Leadership is not confined to people who occupy top positions in organizations.
Leadership is required at all organisational levels and can be displayed even by a person who has not been assigned
a formal position in the organization. The ability to lead others effectively is a rare quality
Jack Welch, CEO of General Electric, is reported to have called his direct reports together one day. He issued a three-
word dictum— “Don’t manage! Lead!”—and then promptly left the room. Many were left wondering, “What’s the
difference? "
Leadership requires voluntary cooperation and teamwork using influence, persuasion, and charisma. Management
relies on control as a mechanism to influence people. Leadership may produce a dramatic change such as bringing
out an innovative product; management is more likely to produce a predictable change. Leadership may result in
transforming an organization. Management only maintains the status quo.
Most recently, Avolio, Luthans, and colleagues at the Leadership Institute at the University of Nebraska concentrate
on authentic leaders, which means to know oneself, to be consistent with oneself, and to have a positive and
strength-based orientation toward one’s development and the development of others. Such leaders are transparent
with their values and beliefs. They are honest with themselves and with others. They exhibit a higher moral reasoning
capacity, allowing them to judge between grey and shades of grey.
For organizations to thrive—let alone survive—they must be led by individuals who have a strong commitment to
change. As such, leaders must have clear visions about what the future holds. The world’s top leaders tend to agree.
In a large-scale survey of CEOs from 20 different countries, having “a strong sense of vision” was identified by 98 per
cent as the most important characteristic for a CEO to have. companies with the most visionary leaders tend to
outperform those with less visionary leaders in all important financial respects. people who have changed the
world because of their visions. Among others, the names of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and President John F.
Kennedy are certain to come to mind. These individuals surely were effective at envisioning ways of changing society
and then bringing these visions to reality. People who do things to revitalis
-e and transform society or organizations are known as transformational leaders.
Transformational leadership refers to the process of influencing major changes in the attitudes and assumptions of
organization members and building commitment for major changes in the organization’s objectives and strategies.
Transformational leadership involves influence by a leader over subordinates, but the effect of the influence is to
empower subordinates who also become leaders in the process of transforming the organization. Thus,
transformational leadership is usually viewed as a shared process, involving the actions of leaders at different levels
and in different subunits of an organization.
Therefore, transformational leaders dream about bringing great change to the future instead of merely incremental
changes
Transformational leaders are not afraid to dream
big, hoping to change the world. Just the opposite appears to be going on here.
what makes a leader transformational?
Their key characteristics are as follows.
_ Charisma. Transformational leaders have a mission and inspire others to follow them, often in a highly emotional
manner.
_ Self-confidence. They are highly confident in their ability and judgment, and others readily become aware of this.
_ Vision. Transformational leaders have ideas about how to improve the status quo and do what it takes to change
things for the better, even if it means making personal sacrifices.
_ Environmental sensitivity. These leaders are highly realistic about the constraints imposed on them and the
resources needed to change things. They know what they can and cannot do.
_ Intellectual stimulation. Transformational leaders help followers recognize problems and identify ways of solving
them.
_ Interpersonal consideration. These leaders give followers the support, encouragement, and attention they need
to perform their jobs well.
_ Inspiration. They communicate the importance of the company’s mission and rely on symbols (e.g., pins and
slogans) to help focus their efforts.
_ Morality. Transformational leaders tend to make decisions in a manner showing advanced levels of moral
reasoning. For a summary of some research evidence bearing on this, see
Transformational leadership derives its name from the process hypothesized to account for the success of the
group. A successful leader transforms the members into believing in themselves, generating confidence in their
respective abilities, and elevating their self-expectations. A transformational leader unleashes the power and
harnesses the talent within a group to help it be successful. Understanding this conversion process is the object of
research on transformational leadership.
Bass (1998) suggested that transformational leaders make followers feel more aware of their importance and value
to the success of the group. Followers are expected to sublimate their self-interests for the overall benefit of the
group. The desire to be trusted and respected by the leader prompts the group to respond with greater effort and
commitment to achieve a common goal. Kark, Shamir, and Chang (2003) found that followers socially identify with
transformational leaders and feel empowered to act because of their relationship with the leader.
Howard Schultz, founder and chair of Starbucks Coffee, is the transformational leader and visionary heart of
Starbucks. After two stints as CEO, Schultz will remain as executive chair and turn his attention to building
Starbucks’ new premium Roasteries and high-end Reserve coffee.
Transformational leadership is very important for individual followers as well. Transformational leadership
that is focused on individuals increases task performance and initiative. Employees who work for a
transformational leaders are more satisfied, motivated, and perform better than those who do not.
Transformational leaders do more with colleagues and followers than set up simple exchanges or agreements. They
behave in ways to achieve superior results by using one or more of the four components of transformational
leadership (Bass, 1998):
• Idealized influence. Transformational leaders behave in ways that make them role models for their followers.
The leaders are admired, respected, and trusted. Followers identify with the leaders and want to emulate them;
leaders are endowed by their followers with extraordinary capabilities, persistence, and determination.
• Inspirational motivation. Transformational leaders behave in ways that motivate and inspire those around them
by providing meaning and challenge to their follower's work. Leaders get followers involved in envisioning
attractive future states; they create communicated expectations that followers want to meet.
• Intellectual stimulation. Transformational leaders stimulate their followers’ efforts to be innovative and creative
by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways. New ideas and
creative problem solutions are solicited from followers, who are included in the process of addressing problems
and finding solutions.
• Individualized consideration. Transformational leaders pay special attention to every follower’s needs for
advancement and growth by acting as a coach or mentor. Followers and colleagues are developed to
successively higher levels of potential. Individual differences in needs and desires are recognized, and the
leader’s behavior demonstrates acceptance of these differences.
In the world of business, Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric (GE), is a classic example of a
transformational leader. Under Welch’s leadership, GE underwent a series of major changes concerning the way it
does business. at the individual level, GE abandoned its highly bureaucratic ways and now does a good job of
listening to its employees. GE consistently has ranked among the most admired companies in its industry in Fortune
magazine’s annual survey of corporate reputations
A leadership scale has been developed (the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire) that assesses these components
of transformational leadership. Research (e.g., Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996) have supported the
construct validity of these components and has revealed that transformational leadership is strongly associated with
work unit effectiveness. In particular, the idealized influence component is most strongly related to overall
effectiveness. Bass (1997) asserted that these four components of transformational leadership transcend
organizational and national boundaries and speak to the “universality of leadership.”
What Makes Transformational Leadership So Great? Overall, an exhaustive program of research has sought to
discover why transformational leadership is so effective. In general, researchers have found that it is, effective for
five reasons:
1. Affective or attitudinal mechanism: Transformational approaches promote positive employee moods, emotions,
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and feelings of well-being.
2. Motivational mechanism: Transformational approaches motivate employees— they become more confident and
engaged and are more willing to put in the time and effort.
3. Identification mechanism: Transformational approaches lead employees to personally identify with the leader and
the leader’s values and identity as well as the team or organization.
4. Social exchange mechanism: Transformational approaches improve the quality of exchange and relationship
between leaders and followers. Followers are also more likely to perceive that they are supported by the leader,
team, and/or organization.
5. Justice enhancement mechanism: Transformational approaches improve employee fairness perceptions,
motivating followers to contribute more and to trust the leader, team, and organization more.
How Transformational Leadership Works Transformational leaders are more effective because they are more
creative, but also because they encourage those who follow them to be creative, too. Companies with
transformational leaders have greater decentralization of responsibility, managers have more propensity
to take risks, and compensation plans are geared toward long-term results—all of which facilitate corporate
entrepreneurship. One study of information technology workers in China found empowering leadership behavior led
to feelings of positive personal control among workers, which increased their creativity at work. Companies with
transformational leaders also show greater agreement among top managers about the organization’s goals, which
yields superior organizational performance. The Israeli military has seen similar results, showing that
transformational leaders improve performance by building consensus among group members. Transformational
leaders can increase follower self-efficacy, giving the group a “can do” spirit. Followers are more likely to pursue
ambitious goals, agree on the strategic goals of the organization, and believe the goals they are pursuing are
personally important.
Criticism of trans.
Transformational leadership is often celebrated for its ability to enhance organizational performance by motivating
and inspiring employees. Transformational leaders are known for their vision, passion, and ability to create a sense
of purpose among followers, often leading to increased productivity and innovation. However, this approach is not
without its critics and challenges.
Criticism of Transformational Leadership
1. Perceived Manipulation and Power Dynamics: Critics argue that transformational leadership can be
manipulative. Since transformational leaders are often charismatic and inspirational, their influence over
followers can be seen as granting them disproportionate power. This power can potentially be misused, as
followers might become overly dependent on the leader's vision and direction. The concern is that these
behaviors may subtly force individuals into compliance rather than fostering genuine autonomy or
empowerment.
2. Emotional Toll on Leaders: Transformational leadership demands high levels of emotional engagement
from leaders. They must continuously inspire and motivate their followers, often sacrificing their emotional
well-being. This can lead to emotional exhaustion, especially in environments where followers are not
self-motivated or lack the necessary competence and conscientiousness. When leaders are constantly
required to uplift disengaged or underperforming teams, the strain can cause burnout, leading some to
abandon their leadership roles entirely.
3. Challenges with Low Conscientiousness and Competence: When followers are low on
conscientiousness (lack responsibility and diligence) or competence (lack skills or knowledge),
transformational leadership may be particularly taxing. In these cases, leaders must exert even more effort
to inspire and guide their followers, which increases the emotional and psychological burden on them.
Theoretical and Measurement Issues
1. Unclear Dimensions of Transformational Leadership: While transformational leadership is widely
recognized, it is still somewhat abstract in its definition. The theory identifies several key behaviors, such as
individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized
influence. However, there is debate about which of these dimensions are most critical to achieving positive
outcomes. Critics argue that more research is needed to determine how these dimensions combine and
how each contributes to different leadership outcomes.
2. Measuring Transformational Leadership: One significant critique revolves around how transformational
leadership is measured. Many researchers use surveys to assess the behaviors of leaders, but these
surveys may be problematic. A key issue is that they often blur the line between actual leader behaviors and
followers' perceptions of those behaviors. For instance, does the leader provide individualized attention
and intellectual stimulation, or do followers merely perceive that they are receiving these benefits? This
distinction is important because it raises the question of whether transformational leadership is truly about
what the leader does or about how the followers interpret and respond to the leader’s actions.
Outcome Confounding
Another concern is that transformational leadership might be confounded with outcomes. For example, a leader may
be considered transformational because their followers are performing well or are highly motivated. However, this
could be a result of external factors rather than the leader's specific behaviors. This raises the issue of whether
transformational leadership is an objective set of actions or if it is merely a description of desirable outcomes
perceived by followers after the fact.
In summary, while transformational leadership has proven to be effective in many contexts, it is not without its
challenges. The style can take a toll on leaders, especially when working with less motivated or skilled followers, and
there are questions about how it is measured and defined. Further research is necessary to clarify these issues and
to better understand the mechanics behind transformational leadership’s success and limitations.
The concept of leadership has long been considered essential to the success of organizations, shaping how goals are
achieved, teams are motivated, and decisions are made. However, there are instances where leadership might be
deemed redundant, largely depending on the nature of the work, the characteristics of the employees, and the
organizational structure. The theory that explores this notion of leadership redundancy revolves around the idea that
in certain situations, leadership behaviors may not make a significant difference to outcomes, either because the
task at hand is self-sufficient or because external factors render leadership ineffective.
Substitutes and Neutralizers for Leadership
One perspective that questions the necessity of leadership is the substitutes for leadership theory. According to
this theory, certain elements of the work environment, employee traits, or organizational characteristics can replace
the need for leadership. In such cases, leadership becomes unnecessary because other factors can guide employee
performance. For example, employees who are highly experienced, trained, or skilled in their work may not need a
leader to provide structure or guidance. Professionals like software engineers, doctors, or accountants often work
independently and may not require continuous supervision or direction. Their expertise acts as a substitute for
leadership, allowing them to perform effectively without the need for a formal leader.
Similarly, certain tasks can serve as substitutes for leadership. When tasks are highly structured, provide intrinsic
satisfaction, or offer clear feedback, they can guide employee behavior without requiring leader intervention. For
instance, teaching is a job where the task itself may be so intrinsically rewarding that teachers do not rely on
leadership for motivation. The structure and feedback from the task substitute for leadership, ensuring performance
and job satisfaction without requiring significant involvement from a manager or supervisor.
Neutralizers, on the other hand, make it impossible for leadership behaviors to impact outcomes. These
neutralizers could include factors such as employee indifference to rewards, highly formalized organizational
structures, or cohesive workgroups. For example, employees who do not care about organizational rewards, such as
musicians or professors, may not respond to leadership attempts to motivate or guide them. In such cases,
leadership becomes ineffective because employees are not influenced by the leader's behaviors or directives.
The Rise of Leaderless Organizations
Some organizations have experimented with leaderless environments, where formal leadership roles are minimized
or eliminated. Companies like Valve Corporation, W.L. Gore, and GitHub have embraced this model, allowing teams
to function without traditional management structures. In these organizations, accountability comes from
coworkers, and team composition or even compensation may be determined by the employees themselves rather
than a designated leader.
This model works particularly well in highly creative and collaborative environments, where team members are
motivated by the work itself and have the skills needed to manage their responsibilities without oversight. In such
cases, leadership becomes redundant because the employees are self-directed, and the need for external guidance
is minimized.
In organizations with rigid rules, explicit formalized goals, or cohesive teams, leadership may also be replaced by
these organizational characteristics. For instance, a team with strong group norms and a shared sense of purpose
might not need a leader to guide their actions. The cohesiveness of the group itself can drive performance and
decision-making, rendering leadership unnecessary.
Ethical Leadership and Substitutes
In some cases, leadership can even act as a substitute for organizational policies. For example, in the case of ethical
leadership, employees may perceive their leader's behavior as more important than the actual enforcement of
justice policies. If a leader is seen as ethical and fair, this perception can substitute for the need for formal justice
mechanisms, as employees may trust their leader to act in their best interests. This blurs the line between
substitutes and neutralizers, as ethical leadership can replace the need for certain organizational policies while
neutralizing the impact of actual justice enactment.
When Leadership May Be Less Important
There are situations where leadership might have a diminished impact on employee performance, satisfaction, or
motivation. For example, if an employee is working on a task that they find intrinsically enjoyable, the need for
leadership is reduced. The task itself provides the motivation necessary to perform well, making leadership less
relevant. However, this does not necessarily mean that leadership is irrelevant in all cases. The substitutes for
leadership theory suggests that while leadership may be less important in some contexts, it is not entirely redundant.
Certain factors—such as attitudes, personality, ability, and group norms—also play a role in shaping employee
performance, and leadership is just one aspect of this broader organizational model.
Empirical Support for Leadership Substitutes
There is some empirical support for the idea that leadership substitutes can have a significant impact on job-related
outcomes. For example, studies on police officers found that feedback from tasks had a greater influence on
certain activities than leadership behaviors did. In such cases, the structure of the work itself provided the necessary
direction and motivation, reducing the need for leadership. Other studies have found that organizational
formalization—such as clear rules, procedures, and goals—can substitute for leadership, particularly in highly
structured environments like hospitals.
However, the evidence for leadership substitutes is mixed. Some studies have found that while substitutes can
predict job satisfaction and commitment, they do not entirely eliminate the need for leadership. For instance, a study
of hospital personnel found that worker professionalism moderated the effects of leadership substitutes. In other
words, professionals who were highly skilled and found their work intrinsically satisfying were less dependent on
leadership, but leadership was still necessary for less experienced or less motivated employees.
Leadership as Part of a Broader Organizational Model
The substitutes for leadership theory acknowledges that leadership is not always the most important factor in
determining employee performance. However, it does not completely dismiss the value of leadership. Instead, it
suggests that leadership is one component of a broader organizational model that includes variables like
personality, group dynamics, and task characteristics. Leaders do not have "mystical powers" over employees, and
their impact is often influenced by the context in which they operate.
Conclusion
In certain situations, the concept of leadership can be seen as redundant. This is especially true in environments
where employee characteristics, task structure, or organizational features act as substitutes for leadership. Highly
skilled and motivated employees, intrinsically rewarding tasks, and cohesive workgroups can reduce the need for
leader intervention. However, while leadership may be less important in these contexts, it is not entirely irrelevant.
Leadership remains a crucial factor in many organizations, particularly where substitutes are not present or where
employees require guidance, support, and motivation. Therefore, rather than being redundant, leadership is context-
dependent, and its effectiveness varies based on the situation.
