Comprehensive Examination Written Responses Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by George E. Anderson III Leadership School of Business and Technology Capella University QUESTION 1 The mixed method has recently become a popular method of research. Analyze and compare the mixed method, qualitative and quantitative research methods. Evaluate the effectiveness of each as a valid method of research on models of military leadership. Introduction
The sociological effects discussed by Kuhn (1996) as to the institutionalization of knowledge paradigms, may account for the fact there is a great deal of concurrence as to the nature of both qualitative and quantitative research methods. There seems to be almost universal agreement as to the epistemological and theoretical roots of each methodology. There is however, substantial disagreement as to the appropriateness of one methodology over the other. “The researcher’s view of reality is the cornerstone to all other assumptions, that is, what is assumed here predicates the researcher’s other assumptions” (Holden & Lynch, 2004).
Both quantitative and qualitative methodological purists “view their paradigms as the ideal for research” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). While making the case for their chosen style of research, many quantitative and qualitative researchers both implicitly and explicitly argue the inadequacy of research paradigms other than their own. Quantitative research methodology starts with an objectivist epistemological assumption and logically moves through the theoretical perspective of positivism. A ositivistic quantitative researcher believes that in the universe “things exist as meaningful entities independently of consciousness and experience” (Crotty, 1998, p. 5). The world view of an objectivist “revolves around the ontological assumption that the social world external, to individual cognition is a real world made up of hard, tangible and relatively immutable structures. In other words, the social world exists independently of an individual’s appreciation of it”(Burrell and Morgan, 1979).
In contrast, the qualitative research methodology flows from the epistemologies of constructionism and subjectivism, and the interpretive or transformative theoretical perspectives. For the epistemology of subjectivity “the social world external to individual cognition is made up of nothing more than names, concepts and labels which are used as artificial creations, whose utility is based upon their convenience as tools for describing, making sense of, and negotiating the external world”(Burrell and Morgan, 1979).
For a qualitative researcher “human behavior depends on how individuals interpret the conditions in which they find themselves” and “social reality is regarded as the product of processes by which social actors negotiate the meanings for actions and situations” (Blaikie, 1991). “Meaning is not discovered, but constructed…. different people may construct meaning in different ways” (Crotty, 1998). The differences in “the underlying assumptions of the quantitative and qualitative paradigms result in differences which extend beyond philosophical and methodological debates” (Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002). Quantitative Research
Quantitative Research: Defined Initially, quantitative sociological research methodology was developed as an extension of existing scientific research into the nature of the universe. “The purpose of research is to discover answers to question through the application of scientific procedures” (Baker, 2001). Chemistry, astronomy, mathematics and geology are all objective, quantitative sciences which are governed by the rules of inquiry known as the scientific method. Likewise for the social objectivists researcher, “human activity is understood as observable behavior taking place in observable, material circumstances” (Blaikie, 1991).
Social objectivists draw their research techniques from the “hard” sciences and attempt to follow a comparable scientific methodology . “The major goal of objectivists is aligned with that of the natural scientists – they identify causal explanations and fundamental laws that explain regularities in human social behavior” (Holden & Lynch, 2004). “Logical positivism uses quantitative and experimental methods to test hypothetical deductive generalizations” (Karami, Rowley, & Analoui, 2006). Social “science is characterized by empirical research; all phenomena can be reduced to empirical indicators which represent the truth” (Sale et al. 2002). “positivistic research assumes… social reality is a complex of causal relations between objects and causes of human behavior which are external to the individual” (Schulenberg, 2007). Einstein discovered the laws of the universe. The attempt by objectivists to discover the laws human social interactions logically follows. Quantitative Research Techniques “Research methodology is influenced by the logic of experimental designs derived largely from biological science” (Lee, 1992).
For a researcher in the hard sciences to validly study any phenomenon, the researcher must be detached and separate from the phenomenon being studied. Hard scientists believe that if the researcher interferes with the phenomenon in any way the value of the study is reduced or negated. Social “objectivists perceive that their studies can be (and of necessity need be) done independently of what is being observed and that their interests, values, beliefs, etc. will have no influence on what they study or what methods they use” (Holden & Lynch, 2004).
It is the belief of the positivist school that for a quantitative social researcher to validly study any phenomenon, the researcher must likewise be emotionally and intellectually detached from the objects of their study and the methods of their study. Their conclusions must not be influenced by interference or prejudice. The view that “quantitative research is usually confined to filling in questionnaires, paper & pencil-style or administered on line” (Koller, 2008) is not entirely correct. Quantitative researchers utilize three basic designs; observation, experimentation and survey. Baker, 2001) Observation is usually the first step in the scientific method. It is not simple viewing rather “observation consists of the systematic gathering, recording and analysis of data” (Baker, 2001). Experimental research design is “usually undertaken to determine if there is a causal relationship between the variables under investigation” (Baker, 2001). However, in social research there are serious questions as to any experimental construct. Has the experiment, by its very structure, destroyed the objectivity so prized by quantitative researchers and introduced statistical bias which would limit its value?
Is the experimental design within an ethical and moral frame which has been approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Survey research is perhaps the most common quantitative research method. The overall technique is divided into three subsets; factual, opinion and interpretive. Factual surveys are concerned with securing hard, quantitative data. For example, determining the median age of a population might be achieved through a simple survey asking individuals their date of birth.
Opinion surveys are to acquire hard data on respondents’ views upon the topic at hand, for example asking members of the sample if they approve or disapprove of a proposed bill before congress. “Interpretive surveys are used in circumstances where the respondent is asked to explain why they hold particular beliefs or behave in a particular way” (Baker, 2001). The principal advantage of the survey method is its ability to sample a population and from that sample to be able to draw statistically viable inferences for the entire population from the results. (Dale, 2006) Many surveys use techniques to reduce data collection costs.
Such techniques run the risk of introducing statistical errors resulting in erroneous conclusions. “If sampling errors are not corrected, results may appear to reach statistical significance level when in fact they do not” (Dale, 2006). Further, a survey instrument is constructed by people and “because of the subjectivity built into its development, any interpretations of the scores yielded cannot be 100% objective” (A. Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). The introduction of bias can be unconscious or deliberate. Examples of deliberately engineered survey results can often be found within political opinion research.
Questions such as; “Do you agree with the President’s irresponsible and highly risky course of action or would you support our safe and reasonable approach to the question? ” will almost always result in a predictable but inappropriate response. Finally, although the positivist quantitative researcher applies the best techniques of the “hard” science community, they are still dealing with people and not inanimate objects. It is “difficult, if not impossible, for the social scientist to predict outcomes with the same accuracy and reliability as the pure scientist” (Baker, 2001).
The results achieved by quantitative social scientists will not be totally consistent, because people are not totally consistent. Qualitative Research: Defined The qualitative research method is used by social researchers which view reality not in the hard terms of the physical sciences, but rather as subjective intellectual constructs perceived by individuals. The battle flag carried by the armies of the Confederate States of America is familiar to many people; however the symbolic meaning of the flag is intuited entirely differently depending upon the perspective of the individual viewing it.
For one individual it represents repression and misery, for another individual the same cloth represents nobility and courage. Qualitative research develops a rich, deep holistic understanding of the event studied. It is particularly useful in sorting and screening ideas, investigating complex behavior, developing explanatory models, and defining unfilled needs. (Baker, 2001) “The purposes of qualitative research are broad in scope and centered around promoting a deep and holistic or complex understanding of a particular phenomenon, such as an environment, a process or a belief” (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006, p. 99) For the qualitative researcher, reality is subjective. “Subjectivists.. argue that researchers cannot distance themselves from: (1) what is being observed, (2) the study’s subject matter, or (3) the methods of study” (Holden & Lynch, 2004). “research is based on the fundamental assumption that there is more than one reality due to a process of interpretation whereby the social actors negotiate meaning and understanding” (Schulenberg, 2007). In contrast to the positivist perception of reality, for the qualitative researcher, each individual perceives their environment differently and each perception is equally valid.
To discover facts about any social interaction, the qualitative researcher must “share” the experience being studied. They must not be aloof, but rather they must inject themselves into the research so they can fully understand the experiences of the subjects. The “phenomenological approach uses qualitative and naturalistic approaches to inductively and holistically understand human experience” (Karami et al. , 2006). “the qualitative paradigm is based on interpretivism and constructivism… there are multiple realities or multiple truths based on one’s construction of reality” (Sale et al. , 2002).
It is “extremely useful for obtaining insights into regular or problematic experiences and the meaning attached to these experiences of selected individuals” (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). Qualitative Research: Methodologies Qualitative research can be done in a variety of ways, including participation in the setting, direct observation, focus groups, in depth interviews and analysis of existing documents and materials. What is key is that for the qualitative researcher, “The process of data collection involves a dynamic interaction between the researcher and the participant in context under investigation” (Gerdes & Conn, 2001). The analytical process involves an interactive, creative and intuitive examination of the data, all in the search for patterns, themes, or emerging insights, each unfurling form the research process and grounded in the data” (Gerdes & Conn, 2001). However, by whatever the means a qualitative research study is conducted, the “findings, interpretations, and conclusions should be assessed for truth value, applicability, consistency, neutrality, dependability, credibility, confirmability, transferability, generalizability or the like” (A.
J. Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). The collected qualitative data are “disassembled, then reassembled to find uniqueness’s in pattern or principle of process or behavior” (Gerdes & Conn, 2001). Although, the importance of validity is principal among quantitative researchers, “this concept has been an issue of contention among qualitative researchers” (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). Many qualitative researchers see validity not as a statistical test but as being inherent in individual perception.
Especially for researchers who move from a transformative philosophy, the importance of qualitative methods is that they “can serve as an impetus for cultural change as the method explores dynamic systems and processes often unrevealed through traditional studies” (Gerdes & Conn, 2001). A prime example of such a study was the memoir Black Like Me by journalist John Howard Griffin first published in 1961. It recounted the trials of an African American male during the late 1950s in the American South. The work contributed significantly to increased ocial awareness and was a prime literary work supporting the American Civil Rights Movement. Quantitative and Qualitative Methodologies Contrasted Quantitative and qualitative methodologies spring from very different roots and they have very different qualities. “each type of research operates with a different conception of reality” (Schulenberg, 2007). However, “many of the differences that are perceived to prevail between quantitative and qualitative research stem from the misconceptions and miss-claims of proponents of both camps” (A. Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005).
Accusations by qualitative researchers that quantitative research cannot attach meaning to social reality often are met by accusations from quantitative researchers that qualitative research dismisses the concept that social reality might be within an immutable reality. Quantitative researchers maintain that there are real causes of social outcomes that through scientific investigation can be discovered with statistical certainty. Qualitative researchers believe that it is only through human perception and interactions that one can achieve a full understanding of any phenomenon being investigated.
A qualitative researcher “challenges the objectivist view on the fundamental issue of whether or not human being can ever achieve any form of knowledge that is independent of their own subjective construction” (Lee, 1992). For example, a quantitative researcher may ask a survey participant who had not eaten for several days the question “On a scale of one to five with one being the lowest and five being the highest, how hungry are you now? ” Such inquiry, when applied to a statistically significant sample will lead to a statistically valid number.
But perhaps not a real understanding of what that number actually means. The qualitative researcher would not necessarily ask an individual who had not eaten for several days, “How hungry are you? ” rather the qualitative, experiential researcher might stop eating for an equivalent period of time and then record feelings not just of hunger but also of weakness and mental depression. In our example, the purist quantitative researcher would point out; the work done by the qualitative researcher was totally subjective and lacked any statistical validity.
The purist qualitative researcher would point out; the cold statistics of the quantitative research results might be statistically valid, but they are meaningless to individual humans. Ultimately, “any research method chosen will have inherent flaws, and the choice of that method will limit the conclusion that can be drawn” (Scandura & Williams, 2000). A quantitative researcher would challenge the experiential standard of many qualitative researchers and their claim of reality being created from individual perceptions.
If you stand in the path of a flying bullet, it does not matter what your perception of that bullet maybe, are about to be hurt. The experience of being shot is not required. Quantitative and Qualitative Methodologies Compared There are substantial differences between the quantitative and qualitative approaches to methodology; however there are also significant similarities. Each style attempts to further understanding of the human experience and this search for understanding leads to the examination of a wide range of phenomena; including experiences, attitudes and culture. The paradigms are essentially epistemic, and thus focus on matters that do not impinge on the collection and analysis of data” (Scott, 2007). “Both quantitative and qualitative procedures involve the use of observations to address research questions” (A. Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Both approaches use empirical observations. They “describe their data, construct explanatory arguments from their data, and speculate about why the outcomes they observed happened as they did” Sechrest and Sidani (1995). They are bound by their Institutional Review Boards (IRB).
Their obligation to first and foremost “do no harm” drives them equally to incorporate safeguards for their subjects. Finally, legitimate researchers from both schools attempt to build in procedural safeguards to minimize bias and other influences which denigrate the validity of their study. “both quantitative and qualitative investigators utilize techniques to verify their data” (A. Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Ultimately, within both approaches to research “meaning results from the interpretation of data, whether represented by numbers or by words” (A. Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005).
That interpretation in itself is universal and a major limiting factor. Mixed Methodology – Quantitative and Qualitative Methodologies Synthesized The debate between quantitative and qualitative is divisive and counterproductive. “The quantitative versus qualitative contest has often been so divisive that many social and behavioral science students…are left with the impression that they have to pledge allegiance to one research school of thought or the other” (A. Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). A myopic devotion to a particular school of research has limited the advancement of the social and behavioral sciences.
The proponents of mixed methodology point out that while both quantitative research and qualitative research share similarities, at the same time they both have significant limitations and conflicts in their assumptions. Such considerations gave rise to the pragmatist school of research. “Pragmatists embrace both approaches and reject the assumptions contained in the post-positivism and constructivism dichotomy” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). A quantitative approach might be more appropriate when used to address one issue and a qualitative approach might be more appropriate when addressing an alternative issue.
Pragmatists believed in “the existence of both subjective and objective points of view. Asserting that research is influenced by theory/hypothesis and by observations, facts and evidence, pragmatists utilized both inductive and deductive logic, choosing explanations that best produced desired outcomes” (A. J. Onwuegbuzie, 2000). “If all that matter is that scientists go about their business…using methods appropriate to the problems they have to deal with, then philosophical worries about ontology and epistemology are an irrelevance” (Hughes & Sharrock,1997).
Naval navigators, or naval pilots, for centuries had difficulty determining their exact location on the water. The identification of a landmark on the shore provided a point of reference was usually sufficient but of limited value in the shifting vastness of the ocean. When it became important to precisely locate a ships position, a single point of reference was simply inadequate and sightings of multiple reference points on the shore were added to the calculation so the position of the ship could be triangulated.
The more points of reference a naval pilot used to confirm their position, the more confident they could be of having a precise reading. The concept of triangulation in research was taken from those piloting procedures. In physical research variables can be controlled with some accuracy and replication of a quantitative research can yield a high level of validity as to the results. Two parts oxygen added to one part hydrogen has always made water and one can reasonably expect that formula to continue working.
In social science simply replicating an experiment using the same methodology is inadequate to provide a high level of confidence in the findings. There are simply too many uncontrollable variables in social science. Americans perception of Arab terrorists was different on the tenth of September 2001 than it was on the twelfth of September 2001. Mixed methodology first appeared within the concept of research triangulation, or the utilization of separate methodologies within the same study to increase or confirm the understanding of the question being investigated. Increased triangulation should improve the ability of researchers to draw conclusions from their studies” (Scandura & Williams, 2000). “Mixed Methodology strategies are really refined forms of triangulating strategies with one or more added assumptions” (S. Miller & Gatta, 2006). “The underlying logic of mixed methodology appears to be the belief that systematic multiple ways of looking at a phenomenon can yield deeper insights than if the phenomenon were looked at using what is referred to as a monostrand (single) approach” (S.
Miller & Gatta, 2006). Any researcher is looking to understand the subject matter at hand and if “truth is a normative concept, like good. Truth is what works” (Sale et al. , 2002). Then instead of arguing the virtues of one methodology over another, the logical next step would be to take the best from each style, forming mixed methodology, which “combine(s) qualitative and quantitative methods in a single study is (now) widely practiced and accepted in many areas” (Sale et al. , 2002).
Medical researchers have provide two reasons for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches; “The first is to achieve cross-validation or triangulation-combining two or more theories or sources of data to study the same phenomenon in order to gain a more complete understanding of it. The second is to achieve complementary results by using the strengths of one method to enhance the other” (Sale et al. , 2002). Psychology “researchers were approximately twice as likely to use mixed-methods sampling designs that were sequential than concurrent” (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Jiao, 2006). Methodologies of Military Leadership Research
The study of military leadership represents a unique set of challenges when compared to studying corporate or educational leadership. Because of the truly deadly nature of their business, the autocratic hierarchical organizational nature, and the contractual nature of the employment sociological studies of military leadership pose special challenges. Driven by the fundamental deadly nature of the military enterprise military leadership is autocratic and hierarchical. In any army, one’s immediate supervisor has almost total control and the failure to obey direction can result in severe consequences included imprisonment.
Employment within the military is highly contractual. There is little or no freedom of employment. Once a contract is in place, the individual will serve out their time obligation or face serious consequences. Because of these factors, the requirements placed on civilian leaders are significantly different than those placed upon military officers. Only in first line positions does the term “leader” apply to military officers. A lieutenant maybe a platoon leader but higher ranking officers are commanders. Overall, military officers tend to consider themselves to be much more managers than they consider themselves to be leaders.
That said, the study of leadership within the military has taken many forms. Depending upon the inclinations of the researcher and the specific question at hand, quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies have all been used at various times. Military Leadership Research: A Sampling A common form of military leadership research is through the qualitative analyses of historic data in histories or biographies. (Simonton, 2003) By comparing various leadership techniques used by a variety of successful military commanders qualitative conclusions may be drawn.
Such studies avoid the potential embarrassment of having the researcher draw the “wrong” conclusions about current military leadership. Luke McCormick and David Mellor in their study “The role of personality in leadership: An application of the five-factor model in the Australian military”(2002) utilized a mixed methodology by cross referencing a quantitative personality inventory taken by ninety-nine junior Australian commissioned officers with the qualitative efficiency assessment reports given by their superiors. The goal was to develop a personality profile optimizing pre-assessment of a successful military career. The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite military leadership characteristics” by Lisa A. Boyce and Ann M. Herd (2003) is a highly experiential and interpreted qualitative work. Moving from what appears to be a transformative philosophical position, the authors provided a group of volunteers from the US Air Force Academy opinion surveys the researchers analyzed. The sample was “balanced” and the study’s conclusions were tragically predictable. (I suspect as an old soldier, my conclusions on this work were also tragically predictable. ) Paul Bartone et. l. (2002) conducted a quantitative longitudinal study on a large body of students over a four year period with multiple regression procedures to identify which aspects of a student’s personality could be used to successfully predict a particular students success within the Corps of Cadets at West Point. Over 1000 cadets were studied over a four year period of time. The study revealed a gender affect with females scoring higher than males. Motivation to Lead: Research on the motives for undertaking leadership roles in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) by Amit, et. l. (2007) was a mixed methodology study cross referencing the author’s quantitative “Motivation to Lead” (MTL) instrument with the qualitative leadership assessment of 420 Israeli soldiers. The MTL instrument was administered to 420 soldiers upon completion of basic training and compared to their individual assessments from that period. The study of military leadership can take many forms; quantitative, qualitative or mixed methodology. The form of the research is determined by the researcher’s epistemological and theoretical perspectives.
Each study has the opportunity of providing significant contributions. At the same time, each study contends with the limitations imposed by its particular approach. Is there then the ability to select a specific style of research which might be most applicable to the study of military leadership? This student would have to conclude that there is not. Taken from a simply pragmatist point of view, militaries are highly complex social structures and to be effective a wise researcher selects an appropriate methodology to most effectively investigate the issue at hand.
QUESTION_2: Charan, Drotter, and Noel (2001) posit “there is a particular gestalt to leadership. ” Leadership style is an element of this gestalt. Transformational and transactional leadership styles have been portrayed in the literature as both oppositional and complimentary leadership styles (Bass, 1985). Identify the distinctions between transformational and transactional leadership styles. Analyze the relevant scholarly literature and cite examples illustrating the influence of these leadership styles. Transactional and Transformational Leadership Defined
The study of transformational and transactional leadership styles has dominated the last quarter of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. Dr. J. M. Burns (1978) was the first to conceptualize transformational leadership. However, shortly thereafter through numerous books and articles, Dr. Bernard Bass became recognized as the major proponent of the transformational leadership concept. Transactional leadership is the older of the two conceptualizations and stems from the early work on Scientific Management (Taylor, 1911). Transformational Leadership Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of leadership initially included seven leadership factors, which he initially labeled charisma, inspirational, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, management by exception and laissez-faire leadership” (Avolio & Bass, 1999). Bass later exchanged the term “charisma” for the term “idealized influence” for semantic reasons. When compared to traditional leadership theories, which emphasized rational processes; the study of transformational leadership emphasizes emotions and values. Yukl, 1999) Of the seven total leadership factors Bass conceptualized, there were four which applied specifically to transformational leadership. Those four leadership components were idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration. Idealized influence (originally charisma) implies that followers respect, admire and trust the leader, emulate their behavior, assume their values, are committed to achieving the leaders vision and make personal sacrifices towards that goal.
This dedication stems from three major sources; the leader being moral and ethical, the leader’s dedication to the organization and the people within the organization, and the leader’s confidence in the competence of the people within the organization to successfully accomplish the organizational vision. It is the emotional connection between the leader and the followers of the organization. Perceptions of the transformational leader are at least as important as the actual actions of the transformational leader.
The power of a transformational leader “is, at least in part, an attribution based on the perceptions of a leader’s behaviors” (Feinberg, Ostroff, & Burke, 2005). “Based on the leader’s behaviors, followers will form some consensual attribution about the leader” (Feinberg et al. , 2005). It is in such a way that transformational leaders can enhance collective efficacy by providing “emotional and ideological explanations that link followers’ individual identities to the collective identity of their organization” (Walumbwa, Peng, Lawler, & Kan, 2004).
A transformative leader has a gift for seeing what is emotionally important to their followers. “Transformational leaders rely on empathy to understand followers’ thoughts, feelings, and points of view” (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006). The leader communicates on an emotional level, as well as an intellectual level, exuding confidence and stimulating similar feelings in their followers. Through this emotional connection the transformational leader gains their followers commitment to a shared organizational vision. A transformational leader’s moral and ethical behavior is a major key to their connection with their followers.
It is about doing the right thing not simply avoiding doing the wrong thing. Of all the attributes of a transformative leader, perceived integrity is perhaps the single most important element of their success. “Leader integrity correlated most strongly with rater satisfaction and rater perceptions of leadership effectiveness” (Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2002). The importance of leadership integrity can perhaps be illustrated by the rapid decline of the Rev. James Baker and his wife Tammy Fay Baker. At one point, the Rev. Baker was the head of a highly successful television evangelical Christian Ministry.
The ministry had a huge following and significant fund raising capability. Upon the announcement that the Rev. Baker was being charged with the embezzlement of millions of dollars, the news quickly spread and the ministry quickly folded. His image of moral integrity had disappeared. Inspirational motivation refers to the leader’s enthusiasm and optimism in creating a vision of the future. A transformative leader uses the emotional connection they have developed with their followers to transmit excitement and confidence. For the followers, the vision is clear, exciting and achievable.
At the beginning of the Second World War, the British Cabinet debated surrender to Germany. The only man who voted to continue fighting was Winston Churchill. He offered the British people nothing but “Blood, sweat, toil and tears”. He promised that if the British Empire lasted another thousand years, this would be Brittan’s “Finest Hour”. He instilled a clear, exciting and achievable vision of the future. A transformative leader attempts to intellectually stimulate each follower. The leader encourages followers to think in new ways and emphasizes problem solving.
They allow latitude in action and encourage the use of reasoning before taking action. “Leaders create situational contexts and conditions in which followers engage in creative efforts to accomplish their goals” (D. I. Jung, 2000). They understand that to optimize organizational health and growth, the talents of each member must be optimized. Overly formalized organizational structures which place the emphasis upon member seniority over member talent are at risk of atrophy. In a free market society, such organizations soon fail.
The transformative leader provides individualized consideration to all members of the organization. They delegate projects so as to create individual learning experiences for their followers. Then they provide coaching and developmental counseling with the ultimate goal of personnel development. They treat each follower as an individual and attempt to be responsive to their individual goals and aspirations. “Leaders pay attention to each individual’s need for achievement and growth by acting as a coach or mentor” (Boerner, Eisenbeiss, & Griesser, 2007). The transforming leader looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower. The result of transforming leadership is the relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents” (Burns, 1978). The effective transactional leader is described as a leader who can identify the expectations of his or her followers and can respond to them fully so as to satisfy them by establishing a close link between effort and reward (D. I.
Jung, 2000). The result of the emotional, intellectual and caring approach exhibited by the transformational leader is that they connect with their followers. “Interpersonal skill was positively correlated with most factors of transformational leadership, suggesting that interpersonal skill was an influential component in the development of transformational leadership style” (Hayashi & Ewert, 2006). It is that connection which gives them the power to motivate. The transformative leader “motivates followers to do more than originally expected” (B. M. Bass, 1985).
No matter what way the transformational leader chooses to implement their leadership, the “followers of transformational leaders demonstrate high levels of job satisfaction and commitment, and less withdrawal intentions” (Walumbwa et al. , 2004). “Transformational leaders are able to influence their followers by connecting followers’ self-concept to the mission of the group” (Walumbwa et al. , 2004). Transformative leaders are pro-actively engaged within their organization. They feel empowered; because they believe that they can influence their environment. (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006).
Transformative leaders believe they can make a difference and they can. Transformational leadership is a predictor of collective efficacy and plays an important role in the achievement of organizational goals. “Studies have consistently revealed that transformational leadership is positively related to work outcomes” (Walumbwa et al. , 2004). Statistically, people simply work better when they believe in what they are working for. Studies “have consistently shown stronger relationships to effectiveness outcomes for transformational as compared to transactional leadership” (Seltzer & Bass, 1990).
Transactional Leadership In contrast to transformational leaders who attempt to connect with their followers on an emotional level and inspire them with a vision of the future, “transactional leaders cater to their followers’ immediate self-interests” (B. M. Bass, 1999b). Transactional leadership at the core involves a simple social exchange process where the leader clarifies what the followers need to do as their part of a transaction and then compensates them for their effort. Transactional leadership tends to be based on an exchange process whereby followers are rewarded for accomplishing specific goals” (D. I. Jung, 2000). Attempts by subordinates to go beyond their assigned task are generally not welcome. Followers are not expected or motivated to create new solutions for the benefit of the organization or with the goal of changing their personal status within the organization. Transactional leadership was widely adopted as the preferred management style enshrined in Frederick Taylors concept of scientific management (1911).
All employees were to be treated in the same fashion. Uniformity was fairness. “Transactional leadership is explicitly designed to clearly define and reward in-role performance” (Boerner et al. , 2007). The employee does what is required; then they receive a reward for their service. Transactional leadership, within scientific management, is implicitly designed to insure compliance with simple pre-designated functions. It should be noted that unlike transformational leadership, philosophically there is not a moral component to transactional leadership.
The only moral obligation of the leader is to fulfill the implicit and explicit terms of their agreement with the followers. It may be argued that the lack of a moral basis within transactional leadership and scientific management was the logical underpinning which supported the labor abuses during the early industrial revolution. The principal approaches to transactional leadership as defined by Bass (1985) include; contingent reward, management by exception (both active and passive) and laissez-faire leadership.
Within contingent reward approach, the transactional leader provides rewards if follower performs in accordance with the employment contract or if the follower expends the required effort for the achievement of a designated task. The employee participation does not extend beyond the designated task. Henry Ford and the early Ford Motor Corporation are great examples of transactional leadership and contingent reward system. Henry became financially successful and legendary by the perfection of the assembly line in automotive production.
The employees of Ford Motor were expected to perform specific functions in a highly regulated environment. For their participation, Ford Motor employees were comparatively well rewarded with a high hourly rate and benefits, but it was clear the company was transactional in nature and not interested in potential contributions they might make outside what had been hired for. Ford paid well but was simply buying their time. Management by exception is the concept where a leader generally avoids giving direction if the existing processes are operating at expected levels. Followers operate independently so long as performance goals are met.
Leadership personnel are separate from the followers and active engagement with them is the exception rather than rule. There are active and passive approaches to management by exception. Within active management by exception, the leader only intervenes if there is a deviation from expected organizational performance but is proactive in the measurement of that performance. The leader looks for mistakes, irregularities, exceptions and failures and then takes corrective action whenever they are identified. Within the passive approach to leadership by exception, the leader is reactive.
The leader waits to be informed about errors and deviances before taking action. If the leader is in an adversarial situation with their workers, the first the time a reactive leader may hear of a problem is when it has evidenced itself outside his organization. When your company is making its first delivery to a new customer, is not the time any leader wants to hear of a problem with their product. Management by laissez-faire is often defined as the hands off style of management. A laissez-faire manager provides little or no direction to the followers and provides them as much freedom as practical.
While, laissez-faire maybe conceptualized by some as liberating, it is often very difficult for followers which receive little or no direction. Laissez-faire often indicates significant emotional limitations of the leader. “laissez-faire leadership style was negatively correlated with all the constructs of emotional intelligence” (Hayashi & Ewert, 2006). Transactional leadership may be closer to the concept of management than it is to the concept of an inspirational transformative leader. A manager is simply concerned with insuring the processes they are supervising continue to operate within acceptable performance levels.
They are not concerned with the establishment of an emotional connection with, or the development of their subordinates. A transactional leader could be directive or participative (B. M. Bass, 1998) but because at the core, transactional leadership is the exchange of employer money for employees time there cannot be pseudo-transactional leadership. Failure to fulfill the explicit or implied terms of an employment contract is emotional, legal and moral fraud. It is quickly discovered and the relationship terminated. The employer who fails to meet payroll on a Friday, will find few employees on the job come
Monday morning. The employee who fails to perform within the standards expected will soon find themselves without work. Transactional and Transformational Leadership Synthesized Since Bass (1985) introduced the concept of transformational leadership many have viewed transactional and transformational leadership as diametric ends of a leadership continuum, each style exclusive of the other. Others have seen transformative and transactional leadership styles as simply complementary. However, neither such conceptualization is adequate. The interrelationship of the two leadership styles is much more complex.
For purposes of this paper, I will use the term “organizational context” to refer to the entirety of an organizations external environment. I am using the term “organizational environment” to refer to an organizations internal and cultural environment. Organizational context and organizational environment are interrelated and dictate the predominant leadership style appropriate for the situation. Organizational Context It has been argued that organizations succeed when they are well connected to external environment. Those connections range across a wide spectrum of issues and players including customers, suppliers, regulators, etc.
The life of the organization depends upon its connectivity and responsiveness to the entirety of its external context. That connectivity is considered in two of the four factors of the strategic planning acronym SWOT. (Pickton & Wright, 1998) Both opportunities and threats are to be found in the external organizational context. Some contexts require organizational participants to have large investments in hard capital, such as assembly lines or blast furnaces. Other contexts require organizational participants to have large investments in soft capital such as the software industry with its requirement for a highly educated work force.
To a very large degree, the industry context will dictate the organizational environment required for long term success. Organizational Environment Organizational environment “has a powerful effect on the performance and long-term effectiveness of organizations” (Masood, Dani, Burns, & Backhouse, 2006). There is a large body of evidence that “transformational leadership has been positively correlated with how effective the leader is perceived by subordinates… how satisfied the subordinates are with the leader and how well subordinates perform as rated by the leader” (Hater & Bass, 1988).
The followers of a transformational leader “produce high levels of subordinate effort and performance that went beyond what would occur with a transactional approach” (Seltzer & Bass, 1990). As importantly, the increased effort and performance was accompanied by “higher levels of creativity measured by divergent thinking among group members” (D. I. Jung, 2000). To do this the transformative leader has to “establish an organizational environment in which subordinates feel safe in trying out innovative approaches without the fear of punishment for failure” (D.
I. Jung, 2000). Such transformative “followership” is vital within an appropriate context. Most of an organizations context is outside managements control, therefore the internal organizational environment must be constructed in such a way as to optimize external connectivity. There are some organizational contexts in which individual initiative and creativity are largely undesirable, for example, within a basic services organization, an engineering organization or within a government agency. Basic services tend to be highly repetitive.
The development of a transformative organizational vision in an industry which removes trash or delivers mail tends to meaningless for those who are doing the actual function. As illustrative, I once had an acquaintance who was a postman by profession. I indicated my belief that it was the postman who made commerce happen and brought messages with life and emotional connections from one person to the next. He informed me that his job was simply “to put paper into the right slots”. It is hard to be inspired through the daily routine.
The relationship government agencies have with their employees is highly transactional. They are “generally dominated by a hierarchy culture, as evidenced by large numbers of standardized procedures, multiple hierarchical levels, and an emphasis on rule reinforcement” (Masood et al. , 2006). Within all transactional governmental organizations, militaries tend to be the most hierarchical and transactional. The context of military operations changes comparatively slowly. Because of the life and death nature of any military endeavor the inclination towards scientific management is compounded.
Military organizations are “dominated by the hierarchy culture, the leadership style shown is that of organizing, controlling, monitoring, administering, coordinating, and maintaining efficiency” (Masood et al. , 2006). Operationally, military’s tend to be very scientific in their nature and highly transactional in their leadership style. The military organizational environment prizes compliance over creativity. To be successful within an army any individual needs to be first and foremost a transactional leader.
This has historically led to organizational atrophy and the cliche that the army is always getting ready to fight the last war. The bayonet charge was one of the principal techniques used by the French Army under Napoleon Bonaparte. It became a deeply ingrained part of the French Army’s organizational environment. It was only after the deaths of a million French soldiers and a mutiny by the army that the French Higher Command concluded bayonet charges against machine guns were not wise. The First World War taught the French Army the best way to fight was from well fortified fixed positions.
During the 1920s and the 1930s, at great expense, the French Army built the “impregnable” Maginot Line. The line was circumvented in 1940 and the French Army fell in less than a month to the new German Blitzkrieg. At the other end of the spectrum is the industry context of a high tech Silicon Valley development firm. It is an industry context which is rapidly developing with new and dramatic innovations every year. It is a market which is so dynamic that a company with last year’s technology is soon “last year’s company”.
Of necessity the organizational environment needs to be characterized by a dynamic, entrepreneurial, and creative workplaces. Unlike the very tall and hierarchical military organizations, high tech organizations tend to be entrepreneurial and flat with divisions operating semi autonomously. If an organization is to succeed in such a context, people need to stick their necks out and take risks. It is “essential that individual creative ideas and divergent perspectives be pronounced and shared with co-workers” (Boerner et al. 2007). Effective organizational leadership needs to be “visionary, innovative and risk oriented” (Masood et al. , 2006). Because of the context in which they function a high tech organization requires an environment which prizes creativity over compliance. Organizational Leadership Comparative long term organizational success is based upon the ability of the organization to align and interconnect with its external context. To achieve such alignment an internal environment must be created to match that external context.
The appropriate internal environment is best created by senior management with an aligned leadership style; the transformative leader for an open free exchange environment and the transactional leader for highly structured military environment. It takes a transformative tech geek to create and operate the internal environment of a high tech company in a fast pace industry. It takes a transactional general to manage an army in a scientific and orderly fashion. Hopefully without the atrophy which was evidenced by the French Army twice in the twentieth century. Leadership is not in itself sufficient.
It is the role of any senior leader to insure the organizational environment is aligned with the organizational context. This includes, “structural changes, job redesign and revised human resource practices are needed to add weight to culture change efforts” (Masi, 2000). The expectation of transformative behavior within a hierarchical autocratic organizational structure is unrealistic. An expectation of organizational success by a transactional leader in a high tech environment may be unwarranted. Participative and Authoritarian Leadership Unfortunately, “many people equate being transformational with being participative” (B.
M. Bass, 1999a). In contrasting transformative and transactional leadership, it is important not to confuse transformative leadership with a participative leadership style or transactional leadership with authoritarian leadership style. “Transformational leaders can be directive or participative, authoritarian or democratic” (B. M. Bass, 1999b). Winston Churchill is an example of a great transformative leader however he was not a particularly participative leader. Churchill would listen in cabinet meetings, and then he would make a decision. Once made, he was immoveable.
Likewise, Adolph Hitler was certainly a transformative leader, inspiring millions to die for his vision of a future Germany, but Hitler was also clearly authoritarian in his approach to government and military operations. Transformational “leaders can be directive or participative” (B. M. Bass, 1998, p. 12). Transformative Leadership and Transactional Leadership Synthesized Such a characterization of the context and environment of necessity aligning with transactional and transformative leadership styles is obviously much too simplistic. A synthesis of the two styles requires much more.
History is full of examples of dynamic, inspirational and transactional military leaders acting in a transformational way. Likewise American industrial history is full of highly successful transformational leaders acting in a transactional fashion. All organizations require both transactional and transformational leadership. It is a matter of position and degree. The intertwining of transformational and transactional leadership styles depends as much upon the position of an individual leader within the organization as the organizational environment within the industrial context.
An army is a large organization managed on scientific, transactional principles but an army also needs transformative leadership. A general leading his army needs to be transformational when providing a vision as to why the army was going to fight. Upon assuming command of the Third Army in Europe, Gen. George Patton gave a stirring transformational speech to his soldiers as to why they were fighting Germany and as to why they were destined to succeed. The speech was purely transformational. However Gen. Patton was as clearly transactional when giving orders to his army.
Later research documented this effect “as was expected from military leaders, senior staff officers scored the highest on transformational leadership” (Eid et al. , 2004). Can an army platoon leader be transformative in their leadership style? Certainly, but much more often they are called to be transactional in the accomplishment of the generals transformative vision. In contrast, the head of a high tech company must be substantially more transformational than military leaders. In a military organization, people are secondary to the mission and if necessary their lives are expendable.
Within a high tech organization, the employees are often the greatest asset of the company. To lose the developers and engineers of a high tech company through the actions of a transactional authoritarian leader would signal financial disaster. Any high tech company needs their employees to be diligent, brilliant and loyal. The leader must be transformative to create the environment which will limit employee turnover; however that same leader must be transactional when addressing housekeeping issues. If you want someone to clean a toilet, it is very difficult to inspire them with visions of the future.
It is much easier and much more practical to inspire them in a transactional way with an extra dollar an hour. Layering If we are attempting to synthesize the concepts of transactional and transformational leadership we must consider a strong element of layering. Conceptually based upon Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, (Maslow, Stacey, & DeMartino, 1958) if any leader cannot provide basic transactional benefits, such as food, then it is very hard for them to provide transformational leadership. Grand vision often fades when an individual’s stomach is empty. There are certainly dramatic historic examples of this layering effect.
During the Revolution the American Army encamped at Valley Forge Pennsylvania. Gen. George Washington had been able to inspire his army with the transformative vision of a new independent nation. However, hundreds of soldiers weekly were deserting and few were reenlisting. The army simply had no food with which to feed them. It was the leadership of Gen. Wayne and Gen. Lee who were able to provide provisions during the Valley Forge encampment which overcame the basic transactional needs of the American Patriots. In the modern business world, the same transactional / transformational layering effect is clear to see.
A software engineer may work for a reduced salary in anticipation of their corporate stock options being highly valuable some day. However, the first time a pay check does not arrive, they are rightfully looking for a new employer. The Transactional-Transformational Gestalt to Leadership Early research into leadership focused upon the personality traits which a successful leader exhibited. (Lowin, Hrapchak, & Kavanagh, 1969) There was debate as to whether appropriate leadership traits could be taught or if they were somehow genetically inherent within unique individuals.
But it was accepted that a person’s personality traits are what made one individual a leader and one individual a follower. The difficulty is the concept of leadership by its very nature is developmental. Senior organizational leaders were once first line supervisors. In their book, The Leadership Pipeline (2001) Ram Charan et. al. wrote of the “gestalt to leadership”. Leadership development “ takes the form of six career passages… involve a major change in job requirements, demanding new skills, time applications and work values” (Charan et al. , 2001, p. 6).
If leadership was fixed in an individual’s personality then a shift in the leadership balance between transactional and transformational as an individual traversed those career passages, could not be accomplished. But a myriad of such changes in the approach to leadership go on every day “maybe that transformational and transactional leadership behaviors are more malleable, more transient and less trait like than one might otherwise believe” (Bono & Judge, 2004). There is a strong element of sequencing when we think in terms of transactional and transformative leadership.
As an individual moves through the various stages of leadership, their approach to leadership needs to change. A first line supervisor is responsible for a few individuals in a single department. It is the supervisor’s role to insure each individual completes their assigned organizational tasks. The leadership a first line supervisor provides is mainly transactional in nature. By the time a leader has reached senior management that individual needs to have shifted from fundamentally transactional leadership form to fundamentally transformational leadership form.
They spend much less of their time supervising and much more of their time setting forth organizational vision. To be successful any organization needs to assist developing leaders to successfully traverse through all the stages from first line transactional supervisors to transformational upper management. QUESTION_3: According to Conger, “Two fundamental processes often lead to leadership derailment – the leader’s own potential for narcissism and control, and the dynamics of dependence cultivated among followers” (Conger, 2002).
The framework for evaluating leadership provides an accurate assessment of strengths and weaknesses based on what it takes to become a leader in our society, with specific behavioral goals, and developmental activities. Compare and contrast the leadership styles between a great leader and a dark leader. Analyze and evaluate the impact of cultural values on how dark leaders and great leaders are defined and accepted. Reference: Conger, Jay A. , Danger of Delusion. The qualities that make Leaders Great, Financial Times; London (UK); November 29, 2002 Leadership Defined
By definition leadership is the ability for one person to influence and coordinate the actions of a group of people towards a common goal. Leadership can be exercised in such small contexts as a single individual influencing his or her friends to go out to a movie or as grandiose as a politician rising to be the leader of a country. Leadership can be gained and lost; it is always ephemeral. Leadership counts. “We maintain that individuals, in high-power positions can and do make a difference in the way organizations behave in their environments” (Flynn & Staw, 2004).
Organizations with transformative leaderships are more likely to smoothly operate towards their organizational goals. Companies with dynamic transformational leaders are better at attracting shareholders, as evidenced by increased stock prices. (Flynn & Staw, 2004) Leaders serve “as a role model for the team members and increased cooperation among the members” (Tucker & Russell, 2004). They reach their highest level of influence and power when they have been able to establish a personal, emotional connection with their followers.
The concept of follower identification is defined as the condition when members of a group come to personally identify themselves as followers of a particular leader. (Gardner & Avolio, 1998) They are no longer individuals but conceptualize themselves as disciples of a particular leader. By closely indentifying the leader, followers draw their personal image and sense of self from their association with that leader. (Sinha & Jackson, 2006) The concept of leadership is inherently amoral. Leadership ca
