An age old concern with
leadership is whether leaders are born or made. Is it a matter of being born to the right
parents genetically or into the right nurturing environment? My exposure to that literature indicates that
there is a bias toward believing they are made.
This has the democratic quality which leads one to believe that anyone
can become an effective leader. A
pioneer in the field of transformative leadership, James MacGregor Burns,[1] assumes
that whatever the source of the related skills, they center on a perspective
leader being able to initiate change through the example of his/her
behavior. And further, that dynamic
reflects not an assigned set of behaviors, ones the person can turn on and off
depending on the circumstances, but actions emanating from the leader’s
personality. So, whether such a trait is
a product of genetic makeup or one that is acquired through training, what a
transforming leader has to project is just him/herself. Through these skills, the leader communicates
that he/she is dedicated to enhancing a higher level of motivation and
morality. The leader cannot do this if
he/she is “buying” or threatening in order to solicit compliance on the part of
the followers. Burns saw transactional
efforts – those based on reward or punishment – as counterproductive given the
goals of a transforming leader.
In terms of exemplifying
that which is sought after, the leader is promoting an espoused theory openly
and definitively. In cases when a
theory-in-use varies from what is espoused – and reality will sooner or later
demand some level of variance – a transforming leader is as honest as the
situation allows in whatever decisions and actions he/she takes. But even in these situations, the leader, in
order to keep the mantle of a transforming leader, decides and acts in such a
way as to advance the interests of the collective, be it a school, some other
workplace, a community, or some politically defined jurisdiction. This form of leadership is, in my opinion,
necessary in order to institute a normative-re-educative change strategy.
My only concern with
Burns’ argument is that he does not apply a moral test to the aims and goals of
a transforming leader. In his theorizing,
he disconnects the methodology of a transforming leader and what he/she is
trying to accomplish. Under Burns’
perspective, Mao Zedong and Martin Luther King both are considered equally
effective transforming leaders. I
understand Burns’ thinking on this, but as an advocate of federation theory, I
judge Zedong to have been a despicable leader who accomplished some good, was
conscientiously motivated but, given the levels of suffering and damage he and
his leadership caused, would not be at the pinnacle of transforming leaders.
Picking up the work of
Burns was Bernard M. Bass.[2] He introduced the term transformational to
replace transforming (I use each interchangeably). Bass was concerned with the psychological
mechanisms that operate in order to allow transforming leadership to
succeed. Particularly, he introduced a
means of measuring this form of leadership.
That is, since transforming leadership relies on the acceptance and
reactions of followers (the planned-for), Bass identified a list of indicators
of such acceptance. This included levels
of trust, loyalty, admiration, and respect.
Of course, since all of these are not directly observable, being that
they are states of mind, one can only speculate as to their existence and
strength by what followers say and do.
But usually, these reactions and their accompanying behaviors are the results
of followers observing the level of effort and dedication the leader
exhibits. This is beyond what the
followers expect. In addition, the
leader not only talks and acts to advance the self-interests of those involved,
but also is able to communicate a transcending endgame that has some inspiring
and emotional laden accomplishment or mission.
This, in turn, provides an identity to the follower such as I’m a civil
rights worker or I’m a union man. So
what might be considered here is a leader who instills an idealized influence
which could be observed as charisma.
This is in addition to motivating followers to become intellectually
stimulated and to seek, on their own, newer ways of doing things to help
guarantee overall success in achieving the change being sought. Unlike Burns, Bass was willing to accommodate
transactional strategies in a transformational effort.
Coming up, I will look in
more depth at the various transforming attributes, strategies, and
distinguishing characteristics.
[1]
Burns, J. M.
(2003). Transforming leadership. New
York, NY: Grove Press AND Burns, J.
M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY:
Harper and Row, Publisher.
[2]
For overview of Bass’ ideas see http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/59330_Chapter_7.pdf .
No comments:
Post a Comment