4. Defining Leadership: Mooney’s Smart Discipleship Model

9 min read

Table of Contents

Defining Leadership
Origin of the Transformational/Transactional Theory
Progressive Model
The Four “I’s”
Scientific Merit
Weaknesses in the Theory of Transformational Leadership
Reducing Behavioral Ambiguity
- ---> Click to Next: Leadership Development: Mooney’s Smart Discipleship Model
4 of 8

Defining Leadership #

Leadership is identified as a process of directing people toward outcomes which previously existed in the form of shared vision. Definitive leadership generally consists of two commons: 1) a cooperating group, and 2) someone influencing the group toward a shared goal. Areas where definitions of leadership differ are in relation to the identification of the influencers, their goals, and the way in which they are achieved (Takala, 1998). The very essence of leadership is vision. Solomon, the ancient known for his wisdom says: “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Pro 29:18, KJV). Therefore, “Leadership determines the overall plan and infuses the system with a character and direction…Hence the leader is a beginner of plans” (Jennings, 1961, p. 3).

Origin of the Transformational/Transactional Theory #

Transformational leadership theory began as the work of James Burns (1978). He proposed a model of leadership consisting of two categories 1) transformational; and 2) transactional. Burns saw these two aspects as being part of a whole toward the leadership and management of people within organizations. However, some hold these as separate models. For this reason, a brief differentiation is necessary.

Burns (1978) idealized leadership as being directed by influence obtained through relationships founded on shared commitments. This approach aims to use shared values to develop a community willing to contribute to higher organizational objectives. Emphasis is placed on shared agreement as a means to redefine perceptions and set new expectations. The entire concept is rooted in the development of people though service toward greater versions of themselves. The psychological underpinnings of transformational leadership are intrinsic and moral motivation.

Transformational theory is a moral approach to leadership through the valuing of human dignity by the elevation of self-esteem, fulfillments, and actualizations of those who follow (Whetstone, 2002). “Transformational leaders demonstrate self-confidence, the ability to articulate a vision, a willingness to pursue the vision even if they must assume high personal risks, and an ability to promote change” (Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998, p. 1728). This approach is people-centered by focus on the communication characteristics associated with “influence; vision; trust; respect/credibility; risk-sharing/delegation; integrity; and modeling” (Hannay, 2009, p. 4).

The transactional perspective assumes “followers act in their own self-interest” (Schafer, 2005, p. 231). This approach appeals to human needs to motivate followers (Whetstone, 2002). The concept is that humans continually evaluate their relationships in terms of valued exchanges with the most favorable outcomes being that they receive more than they give (Locander & Luechauer, 2006). “An effective transactional leader is one who makes it clear that those who give something to the organization get something in return” (Giampetro-Meyer, Brown, Browne & Kubasek, 1998, p. 1728).

While this may seem like a self-centered approach to leadership, the very concept of leading implies that people are following leaders toward common goals. In a work environment the most common goal is the transaction of money. If the “transaction” component is removed from the application of any leadership methodology in the workplace, there is likely to be loss of influence somewhere in the process. There is no conclusive ground on which to determine if transformational and transaction methods should be administered together as a single approach, or separately. Scholars hold both views (Robbins & Judge, 2007; Leithwood & Poplin, 1992).

Progressive Model #

Bass (1996) differentiated transformational and transactional approaches as opposites; not intended to be studied harmoniously. This noted distinction is necessary because transformational leadership is more clearly understood by contrast of transactional leadership. For this reason, Bass speaks of transactional leadership with regularity in focus of his research upon the transformational aspects of Burns’ (1978) original theory. Bass’ (1985) greatest contribution to the development of transformational leadership is the clarity he offers by means of the “four I’s.” The author identified four characteristics of transformational theory in the following: 1) intellectual stimulation; 2) idealized influence; 3) individualized consideration; and 4) inspirational motivation (AKA charisma). As Giampetro-Meyer et al., (1998) describe it, “Transformational leaders demonstrate self-confidence, the ability to articulate a vision, a willingness to pursue the vision even if they must assume high personal risks, and an ability to promote change” (p. 1728).

The Four “I’s” #

1) Individualized consideration is described as the action of meeting members’ needs from an individual and subjective standpoint. These needs may be emotional, physical, professional, etc. 2) Inspirational motivation is the process of vision casting in a clear and articulate manner which can be easily understood and pursued. 3) Idealized influence is the aspect of building interpersonal rapport through the expression of personalities and individual qualities. 4) Intellectual stimulation involves the skilled expression of special knowledge in such a way that promotes a desire to further education and the expression of creativity (Chung-Kai & Chia-Hung, 2009).

A comparison can be seen between individualized consideration and the transactional angle of leadership. This is evident in how the transactional approach holds the assumption that relationships are continuously evaluated for value exchanges and individualized consideration is the aspect of leaders meeting the needs of constituents. Those strategically utilizing the transformational model will likely keep some sort of mental record of their contributions to the needs of those which they lead. In so doing, a similarity between transactional thought and individualized consideration is established.

In consideration of inspirational motivation, there also can be an observable relationship with transactional thinking. Inspirational motivation is often descriptive of leadership’s ability to cast a compelling vision. In such instances, it follows that there are at least two elements of motive. 1) Leadership seeks to establish participants with which to share their vision. 2) Participants of a shared vision have an “interest” at heart for which they strive with others to attain. Hence it follows that shared vision can appeal to the “what’s in it for me” question of transactional rationale.

Nevertheless, the clear distinction of transactional leadership is characterized by influence being dependent upon contingent rewards/consequences. From this perspective, transactional exchanges seem better classified as management rather than leadership. Managers allocate resources for the benefit of an institution. In essence, all employees perform this action in one capacity or another. While there are many similarities between the two, managers allocate resources for the benefit of an institution, “leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, p. 3, 2013). The rational of those influenced by transactional methodology is that motivation is generated through the allocation of agreements, compliments, and recompenses; oppositely coupled by corrective measures and organizational policies (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999).

The results of most factor studies validate that Bass (1996) rightly makes the distinction between transformational and transactional thought (Yukl, 1999). This distinction is measured by definition of a leader’s behaviors which contribute to motivated outcomes. In other words, Bass (1996) observes transformational leadership by the outcomes associated with the influence the leader develops and utilizes to motivate members toward organizational objectives. Influential factors of leader-constituent relations are anchored in quality assessments of trust, appreciation, and devotion held toward a leader.

Conceptually, these factors are proportional to motivating members to reach goals beyond their own perceived limitations, and self-interests (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). The psychological underpinnings of this framework are that of self-efficacy, self-concept, empowerment, human motivation, and rapport. Of particular interest to I/O practitioners might be the similarities of Social Learning Theory, Locke’s Goal-Setting Theory, Alderfer’s ERG Theory, McClelland’s Learned Needs Theory, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. (Barnet & Simmering, 2006).

Scientific Merit #

In addition to the great contributions that Bass (1985) has made to the development of transformational leadership, he and Avolio (1985) are also noted for originating the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Although this test covers a variety of leadership behaviors, it is designed specifically with transformational leadership in mind. The updated version covers five areas relevant to the theory. These are Idealized Attributes, Idealized Behaviors, Inspirational Motivational, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration. These categories are almost identical to the four I’s, with the exception that Idealized Influence is divided into Idealized Attributes and Idealized Behaviors (Geisinger, et al, 2007).

The assessment is structured as a Likert scale which is designed to be administered to organizational members to rate key behaviors of organizational leaders. Considerable research using the MLQ supports the hypothesis that transformational leadership is measurable and leads to the effectiveness of organizations (Yukl, 1999). The MLQ is convent for research because it can be administered in paper or Internet based formats. Results are provided by the publishers. It is often used by I/O consultants and researchers because the psychometric properties are well substantiated by internal and external validities. For these obvious reasons, the assessment has become the standard for research pertaining to transformational leadership theory. Most importantly, the tool is said to offer the information necessary to form reasonable predictions of individual and group behaviors attributed to performance variances in organizational effectiveness. (Geisinger, et al, 2007).

Weaknesses in the Theory of Transformational Leadership #

Yukl (1999) conducted a review of transformational leadership aimed at identifying its weaknesses and gaps by which to propose future research. His name surely stands out among the academic literature because it is rare that transformational theory becomes the subject of negative focus. Yukl’s (1999) observations generally fall into two categories 1) influential processes, and 2) influential behaviors. He demonstrates that there is a lack of clarity regarding the influential process as a weakness in the transformational leadership approach. He argues that influence (in the context of leadership) is a process which requires at least two people who engage in a sequence of communications during an unspecified timespan. The results of these exchanges involve some form of compliance, role identification, and internalization. Further research into these factors may offer insight into leadership behaviors which correlate to emotional arousal, changes in beliefs, increases in commitment to a cause, and overall optimism.

Regarding influential behaviors, Yukl (1999) argues that ambiguity surrounds the identification of specific transformational actions taken by a leader. What things should a leader say to initiate influence by means of cognitive processes? How are leader behaviors identified with the four I’s of transformational leadership? These things are not clear and left to inductive factor processes and conceptual reasoning as a means by which to observe them for purposes of research. For example, there is substantial research which correlates idealized influence with member satisfaction toward leadership. However, the findings also demonstrate a week association with member motivation, which ironically is strongly supported as a quality of transformational outcomes in general.

Additionally, factors such as psychological safety, emotional expression and espoused beliefs are used to identify idealized influences. Yet, how these factors are differentiated from idealized influence is not clear. Hence, Yukl (1999) argues that there are overlapping concepts within the separate categories of the four I’s. Nevertheless, transformational leadership continues to be supported by research correlating it with organizational effectiveness (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), and Yukl’s (1999) findings agree. Despite the above-mentioned weakness surrounding ambiguity, transformational leadership continues to produce desirable leadership outcomes.

Reducing Behavioral Ambiguity #

Schuh, et al. (2012) identifies team cooperation as a behavioral component of transformational leadership. This is achieved through organizational identification; recognized as the personal perception of belonging to an organization as a single part of a collective whole. People who identify with organizations have the propensity to take ownership and exhibit organizational citizenship behaviors. The authors characterize four actions of team cooperation:

Leaders express strong personal identification with their organizations.
They foster identification in organizational members by modeling courage and dedication to the vision.
They highlight shared values and interests.
They personally coach and develop members.

Among these expressions, the concept that transformational leadership can manage and improve team performance through conflicts. Schuh’s et al, (2012) research shows that transformational leaders who promote team cooperation overcome conflict and increase productivity.

Additional research demonstrates that transformational leaders’ effect heightened awareness of the significance of member contributions to organizational operations. As a result, members come to understand the importance of their continual personal development, thereby desiring growth. (Jones, George, & Hill, 2006). In training situations where instructors utilize transformational leadership, students are inspired to exert extra effort toward goals, utilize resources toward greater success, and experience fulfillment in their activities (Pounder, 2008).