Transformational Leadership Essay

This essay examines the transformational leadership theory, addressing common criticisms. It analyzes the purported contradiction between transformational and charismatic leadership, the potential for abuse of power, the limitations of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), and the interplay of power and morality. The author defends transformational leadership, arguing that while challenges exist, its effectiveness in various sectors, including military operations, is undeniable. The essay highlights the importance of ethical leadership and the need for improvements in measurement tools like the MLQ, suggesting that with proper checks and balances, transformational leadership remains a valuable approach.

question
For every theory there is a counter argument. What are the criticisms and arguments
against Transformational Leadership? Identify the sources and clearly articulate the reasoning
behind the criticisms. Adopt a position for or against Transformational Leadership and defend your
position with argument.
Essay in Supporting Transformational Leadership Theory
Introduction;
Transformational leadership theory is the most current leadership theory that attracts many
discussions and researches at different levels to prove its effectiveness in current world leadership’s
pattern, but some are against it. Transformational leadership is all about empowering followers to
develop themselves and improving their performance beyond expectation (Bass & Avolio, 1990 as
cited by Taly el al., 2002). It has also been argued by (William, L. K., et al. 1995. p. 331) that
“transformational leaders have charismatic leadership behavior whereby they attempt to inspire
their followers in return to faith and respect. They also have a clear sense of mission that they
attempt to convey to their followers. It further evidenced that such leaders also tend to have
superior debating skills, technical expertise and persuasive skills.”
The transformational leadership theory’s platform is build of four main concepts(Intellectual
Simulation, Individualized consideration, Idealized Influence and Inspiration Motivation) which are
under heavy criticism from the opposing side of the idea that they are highly correlated to
charismatic behaviors (Northouse, 2007 as cited by
Marturano, 2004). Meanwhile transactional leadership theory uses the existing organizational
structures to build energy of the followers in return for rewards.(Davidhizer & Shearer, 1997 as cited
by Bruce & Robert, 2004)
Four I’s of transformational leadership theory: Intellectual Simulation- the leader encourages
followers to explore new ways of doing things and new opportunities to learn. Individualized
consideration-Transformational leader encourage and give support to individual follower to achieve
their targets. Inspiration Motivation-transformational leaders have clear vision which want to pass
to his or her followers in order to help achieve target. Idealized Influence-transformation leader act
as a role model or mentor to the followers In an organization (Bass & Riggio, 2006. p. 5-7)
From these perspectives, some scholars have criticized the transformational leadership theory on
the ground that is based on few concepts which are not enough to support the idea during its
innovation i.e 4I’s . They added further that is difficult to train others to be transformational leaders.
Nevertheless other support the theory by saying it’s based on on-to-one individuals and recognized
the value and needs of followers.(Northouse, 2001 as cited by John, el at., 2002)
The author of this essay is hereby supporting the transformational leadership theory, on which this
discussion will shed some light into common criticism of the transformational leadership theory. In
particular argument will be based on Contradiction existing between transformational leadership
and charismatic, the danger of transformational leaders to abuse power, Inefficiency of Multifactor
leadership questionnaire (MLQ) and the concept of Power and Morality effects of transformational
leadership.

Discussion;
Contradiction between Transformational leadership and Charismatic leadership Transformational
leader is an “icon” to organization especially in an organization where this leader did what was
thought to be impossible (Bass & Avolio, 1994 as cited by Mandell & Pherwani, 2003).
Hitler is best example of Charismatic leader while Gandhi is highly inspirational transformational
leader.(Doyle & Smith 2009)
It has also been argued by (Burns, 1978 as cited by Tucker & Russell, 2004) that a transformational
leader will elevate his/her followers to a higher level of achievement by his/her inspiration
motivation; moreover followers will strive to organization needs in expense of their own
needs. Transformational leadership is leadership style which is based on four behaviors commonly
known as the 4Is. They are Idealized Influence, Inspiration Motivation, Intellectual Simulation,
Individualized consideration (Bass & Riggio. 2006). Typically the first two behaviors are charismatic
behaviors (Mandell &Pherwani, 2003) whereby a leader inspire his/her followers to the extent that
they reach a high level of believe that without him or her an organization can’t move any step
forward. From this end, a red line can be drawn between the transformational leader to the
charismatic one, the former is working on behalf of his/her followers and organization while the
latter keeps his/her own agenda to the expense of the followers and organization.
Some examples of individuals who are considered transformational leaders include, Bill Gates of
Microsoft, Steve Jobs of Apple, Michael Dell of Dell Computer Corporation, Jeff Bezos of
Amazon.com, Lou Gerstner of IBM, and Jack Welch of GE.(Kreindy, 2000)
Critics of transformational and charismatic leadership lie on its ambiguity in differentiating between
the two. (Bass, 1995 as sited by Yukl, 1999) stressed that, ‘charisma’ is a necessary component of
the transformational leadership; he noted further, that a leader can be charismatic without being
transformational. It is not clear where charismatic leader cannot be transformational and the
opposite is also true. There is confusion even in their definition both theories insist on follower’s
empowerment and trust but differ on the inner value and intention of the leader something that
cannot be seen easily (Bryan, 1993 as cited by Yukl, 1999).
In their study of charismatic leadership (Conger, et al. 1988.p.6) , “they concluded that, the
development of charismatic leadership is assumed to be a transformational leadership process and
transformational leaders are assumed to be charismatic as well as intellectual stimulating,
inspirational and so forth... pure charismatic has attracted followers’ attention, convinced them of
the merits of his or her vision, and established a strong following”. From this end, it is even further
clouded to get clear distinction between the two as they are both playing on the same platform of
leadership behaviours such as inspiration motivation.
It was also argued by (Avolio & Bass. 1987 and House.1977 as cited by Conger, et al.1988) that at the
apex level of charismatic leadership, a leader is seen as demonstrating or addressing the individual
needs of followers (treating followers on a one-to-one basis) and they encourage followers to look at
old problems in new ways through intellectual stimulation. It is rather confusing as at the apex
charismatic leaders become transformational leader as they are using built-in behaviors of
transformational(Graham, 1987 as cited by Conger, et al. 1988).
From this juncture, the author of this essay is convinced that, charismatic is a very important part of
the transformational leadership theory and the two are over lapping but not contradicting (Propper,
1994 as cited by Conger & Kanungo, 1994). The charismatic leadership includes among other things,

a sensitivity to followers’ feelings which is also become necessary in a transformational leadership
environment in order to prevent resentment (Conger & Kanungo, 1994). The author agrees with
(Conger &Kanungo, 1994. p. 441-442) who say that, “what distinguishes these two theories has little
to do with any fundamental differences in the leader ’s behavior or tactics but rather with the
perspectives from which the leadership phenomenon is viewed.” Surprisingly despite all these
criticism directed toward transformational leadership theory, none is negating output of the theory
to organization performance including in military operations.
“ The Russians are very good at fighting but when their commander died, all their strategies and
plan ceased with immediate effects but Americans they will keep on fighting even if they lose their
leader, ... even corporal can lead others with no significant changes” . Added one Chechnya
commander during Chechnya and Russian war of 1994-1996.(Colonel: Homrig, 2001)
Transformational leader and abuse of power
Transformational leaders tend to empower their followers, they also try to make their followers
aware of the biggest issues ahead of them, making them ready to trade their own self-interests for
the organization’s interests also leaders become role model to their followers hence; followers will
accept and trust their leader by giving their hearts(Northouse, 2004 as cited by Tucker & Russell,
2004) Transformational leaders have two powers in an organization as far as the transformational
leadership theory is concerned(Russell, 2004); 1) from his/her personal characters that followers are
emotional happy to follow without any arguments, 2) is from organization structure that allow in
dispensable authority and power to leaders.
It has been criticized that Transformational leader are somehow talented with special traits which
followers have no way of accessing; consequently the follower’s destinies are inescapably tied to the
ambitions of their dominants leaders (Northouse, 1997 acited by Clark, 2009). Another concern
arises when transformational leader uses powers, authorities and trust given by organization and
followers in an unethical way in benefiting himself/herself in the expense of followers and
organization. It is expected that transformational leader will be leading by pulling and not pushing,
leader as a human, has positive and dark side, only positive side transformational leader should keep
on using all time (Bass & Steidlmeir, 1999 as cited by Parry & Proctor-Thomas,2002). Power can be
danger if leaders use their dark side to benefit them self alone without paying attention to followers
and organization needs. Transformational leaders can use organization structure to overpower
followers and undermine the ultimate goal of the organization.
From this end, author is backing the theory that leader has to be given enough power to fulfill the
mission, power is source of leader’s confidence in doing the job when is a genuine leader with moral
character, ethical values and morality of ethnical process(Bass and Stedlmeier 1999 as cited by
Griffith, 2007). It’s important for leaders ,followers and organization to be able to detect any kind of
dark side of leaders as early as possible to avoid consequences,
Inefficiency of Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ)
The most well known tool for Transformational Leadership measurement is the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire, known as the MLQ. (Bass, 1999) This tool has 142 questionnaires relating
to leader’s behaviors. MLQ package has two forms of questionnaires to be answered, 1) The MLQ-
the Leader Form, which is completed by the leader themselves, and the Rater Form, which is
completed by the followers. As the Leader form would naturally contain a bias, the Rater form is
considered to be the more important of the two (Bradley & Charbonneau, 2004 and Bass & Riggio,
2006). Despite the MLQ being consistence and accurate in measuring leadership behaviors to alpha

coefficients of 0.80 (Bass & Riggio, 2006), still is subject to many criticisms from its users and
researchers in particular. However, meta-analysis looks like a solution (Bass &Riggio. 2006).
One critics is, MLQ has been in constantly changing to cope with the researchers needs leading to
many MQL versions which ultimately crating confusions on which is best predictor of
leadership behaviors. It has been questionable issue from researchers forages as MLQ lacks
consistency, reliability and applicability as a research platform to measure transformational
leadership behaviors, hence leading to significant variants in research results which misleading to
systematic flow of transformational leadership theory (Tajeda, et al. 2001 as cited by Parry &
Proctor-Thomas, 2002).
“Bass and his colleagues are unclear as to when we can categories someone as a transformational
leader due to the fact that there are four factors of transformational leadership behaviors, so it is
likely that leaders will exhibit some but not all of the factors, how can this leader be called?, what
happen if leader possess some of the behavior in some time but lose them in other time?” (Bradley
& Charbonneau, 2004. P.10). MQL as a measuring tool is based on few assumptions (4I’s) which
seemed not enough to predict transformational leadership behavior (Lievens, et al. 1997), at the
same time these behaviors are highly correlated to the extent that follower cannot distinguish when
leader is transformational and when is charisma (Yammarino &Dubinsky, 1994 as cited by Lievens, et
al. 1997).
In responding to the pioneer who went deep against MLQ, Tajeda, el al. 2001, on in consistency of
MLQ, it is hereby, and therefore MLQ supported by the author on the ground that, it’s a basic
starting point for all researches, despites of its principal weakness. MLQ5X version by Bass and
Avolio, 1997, for example provide adequate support to capture the full leadership behaviors of
transformational leaders. (Muen john& Armstrong, 2008). It has also been defended by (Bass &
Riggio. 2006) that Tajeda, elal. 2001 that the uses of non-homogeneous samples in their study
leading to wrong results.
From this end, the MLQ is there to exist, only changes and developments are required, if combined
with other methods can absolutely provide insight picture of leadership behaviors, uses of
assessment-center exercise or personality questionnaires could also strengthen the results. (Lievens,
et al. 1997).
Power and Morality effects of transformational leadership
For any transformational leader to be successful in this/her intended mission and vision objectives
has to motivate followers and exert high level of mortality by discussing with them the target to be
achieved and empower them by raising their levels and working ability (Tenbergen, 2001). It is the
high level of positive morality to followers and an ethical behavior of the transformational leader
that will raise the organization performance beyond expectations (Hall, el at. 2002. p .2 as cited by
Hay, 2006 ). It is even further defined that transformational leadership is the product of power and
morality, a leader could have enough power in terms of organizational structure and person’s
character but if there is a negative mortality, the output is just disasters(Tenvergen, 2001. p. 3 -5).

Transformational leader has to exercise morality to follower to the extent that follower forgive their
own needs for the organization objectives. This high level of morality that transformational leader is
putting into his/her followers have been heavily criticized by scholars and researchers in particular
libertarians and organizational development consultants (Griffin, 2003) that Excessive motivation
and morality to followers will leads into negative results to the organization and unnecessary high
amount of stress to the followers. In addition to that, reward they are getting is not matched with
their efforts; much goes to organization rather than to the followers (Carlson & Perrewe. 1995 as
cited by Tenbergen, 2001).
It is even criticized further by (Bass, 1997 as cited by Tucker & Russell, 2004) that mostly
transformational leaders lacks the checks and balances of countervailing interests, influences and
power that will help in avoiding dictatorship and oppression of minority by a majority. As opposed to
the transactional leadership theory, where the higher the morality of the followers the higher the
benefits they going to have in terms of reward, but the transformational reward are not depending
on the output!
As discussed, morality is a key element in transformational leadership; followers have to work hard
toward organization objectives, unless motivated they will not. This policy is supported by the author
provided that, morality will not exceed limit. The author concurs with (Gecas, 1982 as cited by
Shamir, et al. 1993) that, followers are motivated to maintain and enhance not only organization
targets but also their self-esteem and self-worth. Self-esteem is based on a sense of competence,
power, and ability to cope with and control one’s environment. Self -worth is based on a sense of
virtue and moral worth and is grounded in norms and value concerning conduct
Conclusion
In line with the globalised world, transformational leadership is what best fit the purposes, even
consumers now they are asking their super markets where you bought these products that you are
selling to us, if unsatisfied with source of supply then business is just ended. Critics and not criticisms
are what the author has trying to discuss, MLQ remain to be platform of all coming leadership
researches, ethical leader with proper organizational frame work can avoid any change of power
abuses while morality remain to be key factor for any transformational leadership to success. The
author is hereby recommending the transformational leadership theory to be adapted in every
sector and to avoid some of charismatic behavior within the leadership scope.