Leadership Analysis: Charismatic, Transactional and Transformational Theories

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Interview one. Roger – a software designer from Apple Inc.
Interview two. My distant relative Gary, who owns a car-dealership
Interview three. My instructor at the gym – Bob
References

The key differences between Charismatic, Transactional and Transformational theories of leadership are as follows: Charismatic theory of leadership is based upon the assumption that one’s ability to act as an effective leader is innately predetermined. Transactional theory of leadership, on the other hand, is concerned with the idea that, while interacting with each other, leaders and followers never cease acting as the thoroughly rational agents – this establishes the possibility for some corporate bargaining between them to take place (Chaudhary 2013). Transformational theory of leadership differs from two of the above-mentioned rather substantially – it reflects the assumption that one’s effectiveness, as a leader, cannot be discussed outside of his or her ability to endow followers with team spirit (Chemers 2000).

According to Yukl, at the dyadic level of analysis, Transformational theory of leadership should include provisions for: a) infusing people’s activities with meaning, b) facilitating the sense of self-confidence in subordinates, c) establishing the preconditions for employees to enjoy the benefits of being corporately empowered (1999). Yukl’s criticism of Transactional theory of leadership is concerned with the fact that, according to the author, this theory is utterly ambiguous. That is, it provides the would-be practitioners with the essentially mechanistic recommendations, as to how the functional effectiveness of an organisation can be increased, which in turn presupposes the irrelevance of what happened to be the affiliated external circumstances. However, as practice indicates, this leadership-approach can hardly be considered thoroughly justified – especially given the post-industrial aspects of how just about any modern organisation operates (Yukl 1999; Uhl-Bien 2006).

Interview one. Roger – a software designer from Apple Inc.

Steve Jobs (former CEO of Apple Inc.) fits perfectly well into the description of what an effective leader is all about. It became a commonplace practice among many managers to mimic his leadership-style, while addressing their professional duties at work.
What is especially appealing about Steve Jobs, as a leader, is that he was able to motivate the company’s employees to remain utterly committed to taking care of their professional duties, without being supervised. In its turn, this can be referred to as the indication that Jobs did possess a strong charisma.
This would be the person who used to hold the position of a manager in one of the company’s departments. The reason for this is that he always strived to act as a ‘natural born’ leader, while lacking psychological qualities to be perceived by his subordinates as such.
Leaders are born. The reason for this is that, in order for just about anyone to prove itself an effective leader, she or he does not have to merely understand the intricacies of leadership, but to have them incorporated as the organic part of his or her personality.

Interview two. My distant relative Gary, who owns a car-dealership

As an example of a good leader can serve John DeLorean – the person who used to own the DeLorean Motor Company. One of the reasons for this is that he was a man with a vision.
What makes John DeLorean an utterly effective leader, is the fact that was able to come up with rather unconventional solutions, as to how even the most impossible obstacles (on the way of his company’s corporate agenda) could be effectively eliminated.
One of my subordinates at work, who currently works as a branch-manager, is clearly deprived of the qualities of a leader. The reason for this is that he always goes by the book, when it comes to dealing with a particular organisational challenge.
Leaders are most definitely born. If it was otherwise, there would be no followers, but leaders alone. After all, the presence of a hypothetical possibility for just about anyone to be ‘trained’ how to be a leader, would inevitably bring about this state of affairs.

Interview three. My instructor at the gym – Bob

Pavel Bure (who was the captain of the Vancouver Canucks hockey team) is definitely a great leader. As it appears, he does have what it takes to be able to inspire others to act in the way of how he wants them to.
It was specifically on the account of his talent in showing a personal example of how a particular challenge should be addressed, that Pavel Bure never ceased being admired by the rest of team members.
One of my coworkers from the past used to lack the understanding of the fact that one’s position of leadership does not necessarily mean that he should be treating his subordinates arrogantly. Therefore, it does not come as a particular surprise that this individual’s formal leadership was short-lived.
Leaders are born rather than made. The reason for this is that, in order for just about anyone to be perceived as a legitimate leader, he or she must be endowed with something that I refer to as the ‘calling to leadership’. It is understood, of course, that the mentioned psychological quality can hardly be acquired through training.

As the provided answers to the interview-questions imply, the main motif of how all three interviewed individuals went about expounding on the issue of leadership, reflects these people’s belief that there are many phenomenological overtones to one’s ability to act as a leader (Lawler & Ashman 2012). The foremost of them is that, as practice indicates, a person’s awareness of the fundamental provisions of a particular theory of leadership does not guarantee that he or she would be able to keep them in mind, while dealing with subordinates. Alternatively, one may be utterly unaware of what the notion of leadership stands for, despite being seen by others as someone who epitomises the notion of ‘authority’ (Kouzes & Posner 2007). This suggests that it is specifically the Charismatic and Transformational theories of leadership, which should be deemed methodologically legitimate. After all, unlike what it appears to be the case with Transactional theory of leadership, they promote the idea that a true leader must be capable of taking advantage of what happened to be the unconscious longings of his or her followers (Rowold & Laukamp 2009; Conger, Kanungo, & Menon 2000).

What has been mentioned earlier is thoroughly consistent with the main provisions of Charismatic theory of leadership (which also happened to be my personal one). Apparently, when it comes to leading people, one may never cease being aware that it is in their very nature to anticipate being inspired by someone greater than themselves (Wofford, Goodwin & Whittington 1998). The practitioners of Transformational leadership will be able to benefit from understanding this simple fact, as well. After all, the affiliated theory’s methodology stresses out the importance of providing followers with the emotionally charged incentives, as the means of ensuring their commitment/loyalty (Bowman 2014).

References

Bowman, R 2014, ‘Learning leadership skills in high school’, Clearing House. vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 59-63.

Chaudhary, I 2013, ‘Future of ethically effective leadership’,Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 81-89.

Chemers, M 2000, ‘Leadership research and theory: a functional integration’, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 27-43.

Conger, J, Kanungo, R & Menon, S 2000, ‘Charismatic leadership and follower effects’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 747-767.

Kouzes, M & Posner, Z 2007, The leadership challenge, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Lawler, J & Ashman, I 2012, ‘Theorizing leadership authenticity: a Sartrean perspective’, Leadership, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 327-344.

Rowold, J & Laukamp, L 2009, ‘Charismatic leadership and objective performance indicators’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 602-621.

Uhl-Bien, M 2006, ‘Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing’, Leadership Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 654–676.

Wofford, J, Goodwin, V & Whittington, J 1998, ‘A field study of a cognitive approach to understanding transformational and transactional leadership’, Leadership Quarterly, vol. 9, no.1, pp. 55–84.

Yukl, G 1999, ‘An evaluation of conceptual weakness in Transformational and Charismatic leadership theories’, Leadership Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 37-56.

Click Here To Order Now!

Leadership Analysis: Charismatic, Transactional and Transformational Theories

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)