A Critical Analysis of Leadership Styles in Mechanical Engineering

This essay critically examines two distinct leadership approaches: transformational and servant leadership, to determine the most suitable style for the field of mechanical engineering. The introduction highlights the importance of strategic leadership in the engineering sector, emphasizing the impact of leadership styles on productivity and workplace health. The main body delves into the characteristics of transformational leadership, focusing on how it motivates engineers to embrace change and fosters a culture of responsibility. It also explores servant leadership, emphasizing its focus on serving the needs of team members and building community. The essay then compares the two styles, highlighting their differences in influencing followers, orientation, and underlying goals. Finally, it evaluates both approaches and concludes that transformational leadership is the most effective in today's rapidly changing business environment, particularly for meeting the competitive demands of engineering firms. The essay uses citations to support its arguments and includes a conclusion summarizing the key points and justifying the final decision.

LEADERSHIP STYLE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................1
Transformational Leadership.......................................................................................................1
Servant Leadership......................................................................................................................2
Comparison of both leadership theories......................................................................................3
Evaluation and final decision.......................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5
2

INTRODUCTION
A strategic leadership is important to smoothly run the business in almost every industrial
area. It is with a specific consideration of the engineering field in which, leadership is something
more than just management. This is mainly due to an intensifying state of competition in the
market that has greatly affected the functioning of almost all kind of firms, with a context of
workplaces in mechanical engineering sector. Gulseren, Thibault & Kelloway (2019) has stated
leadership to be an important component in the engineering firms that can also become dormant
in its absence. Strong leaders are thus recommended to support such establishments in
maximizing their productivity for further attaining their undertaken goals. However, at the same
time, weak leaders can harm the productivity and jeopardise the overall health of the workplace.
Considering which, it is imperative to cautiously choose a specific style of leadership to
authorise tasks to the mechanical engineers (Para-González, Jiménez-Jiménez & Martínez-
Lorente, 2018, p. 412-432). There exists a variety of leadership styles that can be adopted by
these organisations to command their workers. Transformational and Servant leadership are two
such effective approaches that have been critically examined in this essay. Therefore, the thesis
statement is “To critically examine the two distinct approaches of leadership namely
transformational and servant and determine the most suitable one for the field of mechanical
engineering”.
MAIN BODY
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership has been referred to be a style, using which, the mechanical
engineers gets support and motivation to invent and bring change for entity’s growth. It also
shapes the success of the engineering industry in the future as per the opinion of Englefield & et
al. (2019, p. 18-26). Herein, support in the form of motivation and shaping the success of the
enterprise through innovation are the 2 key points of transformational leadership. In accordance
to the 1st point, transformational leadership is a model to encourage workers through various
motivational tactics (Ghasabeh, Soosay, & Reaiche, 2015, p. 459-467). This is to positively
develop the followers and promote a sense of ethical working in the mechanical engineers
through clearly demonstrated values, moral standards and priorities. Another substantial aspect
of this leadership style is its help in shifting the engineer’s mindset from an idea of self- interest
1

to work for a common good in accordance to Carleton, Barling & Trivisonno (2018, p. 185). The
2nd point indicates an inevitable growth and change in engineering industry, for which,
transformational leadership duly inspires the mechanical engineers to embrace the alteration and
hence fosters a culture of responsibility, possession as well as autonomy at the workplace.
Servant Leadership
Servant leadership on another hand is described as a timeless concept by DeConinck, Moss
& Deconinck (2018, p. 38) that exists with a leadership philosophy which largely differs from
the traditional forms of leadership. Coined by a well-known philosopher named Robert K.
Greenleaf, it has a foremost ambition of the leader to serve the identified needs of team members
on primary basis. It is basically for the growth of the engineering entity, thereby considering
one’s own needs as a secondary element. Servant leadership is stated to be a philosophical
approach with some effective set of practices that in turn enrich the life of mechanical engineers
as per the viewpoint of Seto & Sarros (2016). The 2 key points of servant leadership in the field
of mechanical engineering involves persuasion and building community. The 1st point is apparent
to create better establishments with an ultimate agenda of building a just and considerate globe.
It is very much like the approaches of democratic leadership and hence compliments the adopted
strategies of transformational leadership style (Hawkins, 2017). However, the 2nd point is more
focussed on the growth and well being of community and its people at the workplace, as stated
by van Dierendonck & Patterson (2015, p. 119-131). It makes it quite different from the
traditional measures of leadership that generally includes accretion and implementation of power
by the one who is positioned at the uppermost level of a pyramid.
Also, such type of leaders is required to possess certain characteristics which involves
empathy, awareness, foresight, stewardship, active listening approach, healer, conceptualization
and a sense of commitment to growth and liberation. Winston & Fields (2015, p. 413-434)
argued this form of leadership to be problematic in autocratic and hierarchical cultures in which
the leaders and other managerial bodies are likely to take the final decisions. In such situation, it
is difficult for the servant leaders to earn respect, with a specific concern of engineering industry.
Beside this, some other pitfalls of this theory involve its huge incompatibility with the directive
style of leadership that in some way shatter the conventional image of leadership.
Moreover, it is not easy for people to lose their self glory and hence become difficult for
the engineering organisations to successfully appoint such leaders. It also does not fit into all
2

type of entities and takes time to put into place (Gulseren, Thibault & Kelloway, 2019). This is
for instance on referring to its foremost concern of building trustworthy relationships and a sense
of team building at the workplace in almost each individual. It cannot be done in a short span of
time and necessitates the servant leaders to personally interact with their team members to know
them well and identify the measures that can motivate them. Sipe & Frick (2015) with a similar
perception have stated that any business which is looking for a quick turnover may not apply the
tactic of servant leadership and become unsuccessful.
Comparison of both leadership theories
Despite of being similar in many ways, there still exist three key differences among both
leadership styles. First is the tactic of influencing the followers where transformational
leadership value the mechanical engineers with an aim of guiding and inspiring them to unlock
their potential of benefitting the business (White, 2018). Servant leadership on other hand tends
to emphasis on the aspects of listening to support the workers and not only treat them as heroes
but together as clients, as stated by Winston & Fields (2015 p. 413-434). Another difference is in
terms of orientation of both these leadership styles as per the opinions of DeConinck, Moss &
Deconinck (2018, p. 38) where a servant leader sets an example of serving others.
As a result, to which, the entire organisation senses the culture of service and equally
values one other to celebrate the same. The transformational leaders on other hand values the
purpose of the overall enterprise, avoid focussing upon the purpose of employees as an attempt
to create a bigger picture. Lastly, a huge difference lies in their underlying goals, as stated by
Fox (2019). It is where the transformational leaders believe workers to be the drivers of
overarching goal, despite of its nature that could be personal, organisational or developmental.
However, in servant leadership, the focus on workers individual targets provides the means to
attain any organisational goals with an incredible importance of larger goals, with a reference to
the engineering firms (Seto & Sarros, 2016).
Evaluation and final decision
On assessing both leadership styles, transformational model is found to be the most
suitable form to be applied on today’s transforming world of business that is upgrading at a
higher pace. This together meets the realistic objectives of the firms who are striving hard to
combat the rising state of competition (McCrimmon, 2010). It is also useful in quick formulation
of corporate visions that greatly support the leaders in managing change to get productive
3

outcome from the engineers by promoting a sense of enthusiasm in them. This is generally due to
its nature of using inspiration as a tool to motivate the mechanical engineers.
CONCLUSION
The above essay has elaborated two fundamental style of leadership namely
transformational and servant by together presenting arguments related to it. For which, it has
compared both forms to evaluate and justify the ultimate selection of one specific approach in
the field of mechanical engineering. This led to a critical examination of both styles of leadership
with a final preference to transformational leadership for corresponding to the pragmatic
requirements of today’s business world.
The first body paragraph is about transformational style of leadership that emphasis more
upon the concept of genuineness, collaboration as well as open communication to help interact
with each other. It together coaches and mentors the engineers by together permitting them to
take their own decisions and possession of tasks. Transformational model thereby persuades the
leaders to exhibit a strong and authentic leadership with a thought of employees getting inspired
to go well with it. It reflects a management style that gives more room to the workers to show
their creativity and find out new solutions for the old problems.
The second body paragraph is regarding the adopted style of servant leadership in
mechanical engineering and represents the hierarchical structure that is being followed by such
enterprises to successfully apply it at the workplace. The servant- leader approaches shares the
power to further assist people in developing themselves and perform high. This is usually being
done by taking care of their needs and put them first. It together stress upon the identification of
employee’s personal goals by a servant- leader to help them fulfil the same to further make a
willing and focussed contribution to the accomplishment of professional objectives set by the
company. It apparently leads to a greater engagement of workers in teamwork and creates a
better and trustworthy relationship among the members and other stakeholders.
4

REFERENCES
Carleton, E. L., Barling, J., & Trivisonno, M. (2018). Leaders’ trait mindfulness and
transformational leadership: The mediating roles of leaders’ positive affect and leadership
self-efficacy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences
du comportement. 50(3). 185.
DeConinck, J. B., Moss, H. K., & Deconinck, M. B. (2018). The relationship between servant
leadership, perceived organizational support, performance, and turnover among business
to business salespeople. Global Journal of Management and Marketing. 2(1). 38.
Englefield, E. & et. al. (2019). Interpersonal competencies define effective conservation
leadership. Biological Conservation. 235. 18-26.
Fox, M. (2019). Transformational Leadership vs. Servant Leadership: 3 Key Differences.
[Online] Available through: <https://ideas.bkconnection.com/transformational-
leadership-vs.-servant-leadership-3-key-differences>
Ghasabeh, M. S., Soosay, C., & Reaiche, C. (2015). The emerging role of transformational
leadership. The Journal of Developing Areas. 49(6). 459-467.
Gulseren, D. B., Thibault, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (2019). 9. The role and importance of
leadership in creating psychologically healthy workplaces. Creating Psychologically
Healthy Workplaces. 197.
Hawkins, P. (2017). Leadership team coaching: Developing collective transformational
leadership. Kogan Page Publishers.
McCrimmon, M. (2010). Why servant leadership is a bad idea. [Online] Available through:
<https://www.management-issues.com/opinion/6015/why-servant-leadership-is-a-bad-
idea/>
Para-González, L., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Martínez-Lorente, A. R. (2018). Exploring the
mediating effects between transformational leadership and organizational
performance. Employee Relations. 40(2). 412-432.
Seto, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2016). Servant Leadership Influence on Trust and Quality Relationship
in Organizational Settings. International Leadership Journal. 8(3).
Sipe, J. W., & Frick, D. M. (2015). Seven pillars of servant leadership: Practicing the wisdom of
leading by serving. Paulist Press.
van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2015). Compassionate love as a cornerstone of servant
leadership: An integration of previous theorizing and research. Journal of Business
Ethics. 128(1). 119-131.
5

White, S. K. (2018). What is transformational leadership? A model for motivating innovation.
[Online] Available through: <https://ideas.bkconnection.com/transformational-
leadership-vs.-servant-leadership-3-key-differences>
Winston, B., & Fields, D. (2015). Seeking and measuring the essential behaviors of servant
leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 36(4). 413-434.
6