Leadership's Impact on Strategic Success

Introduction

Leadership is often a central and controversial topic for organisational researchers. The definition of leadership as explained by Northouse (2013), purposes to bring forth its implication on strategising. He notes that leadership refers to a process in which an individual significantly influences a group of people, with an aim of achieving a common goal. Strategic leadership refers to the study of various leadership styles, engaging employees, whilst streamlining organisations (Bass, 1985a). Different leadership approaches consequently impact on the vision, growth, as well as the success of an organisation. However, in order to deal with the success of a change, leaders need to be equipped with skills, and also tools, which are effective for the formulation, as well as implementation of a strategy (Bass, 1985b). This paper purposes to discuss scholarly views on the impact of leadership on strategising. In this regard, it provides a detailed comparison and contrast of three views of what constitutes a leadership approach. These include transformational leadership, transactional leadership and authentic leadership.

Theoretical Foundation

Leadership theories focus on traits, behaviours, or power influence, which leaders possess. Moreover, they are concerned with the situation or even a combination thereof (Blake and McCane, 1991). The following leadership theories and approaches are significant in an organisation. They have various similarities, and also differ in certain ways. They are as discussed below:

Transactional leadership

This approach of leadership stresses on the significance of an existing relationship between a leader and the followers. Therefore, it focuses on mutual benefits, derived between the two parties in the form of a “contract,” in which case, the leader is obligated to deliver things such as rewards and recognition, whilst in return, he or she gets commitment or loyalty from the followers (Bass, 1991). It is clear that this leadership approach fails to individualise the subordinates’ needs or their individual development. It involves corrective criticism, negative reinforcement, as well as negative feedback. Overall, this leadership approach is criticised, owing to the fact that it leads followers and their leaders to have a short-term relationship, based on exchange terms, rather than having a solid and long-term foundation (Burns, 1978). It is clear that this approach involves shallow and temporary gratification exchanges, which consequently create resentment between the two parties. In addition is criticised because it uses a one-size-fits-all universal leadership approach, which disregard factors that relate to situational and contextual organisational challenges (Cole and Kelly, 2016). Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to How should multi-national companies.

Transformational leadership

Transformational leadership approach describes leaders as individuals who are obligated to tap their followers’ motives, thereby, purposing to meet their set goals and those of their followers (Bass et al., 2003). In other words, a transformational leader raises the level of consciousness in his or her followers regarding the value, as well as the importance of desired outcomes and also the set methods that can aid in meeting the outcomes (Northouse, 2013). This raises the level of motivation and morality between the two parties. In understanding this theory, it is significant to take note of the term “charisma,” which is a characteristic revolving around a special personality that gives individual exceptional powers to an individual, which are of divine origin, thus, resulting into an individual being regarded and also treated as a leader. As such, it is clear that charisma is a significant element bestowed in transformational leadership. Transformational leadership transforms the self-concepts of the followers through connecting their identity to the organisation’s collective identity, team, or group (Bryman, 1992). Evidently, this connection is often forged through putting much emphasis on intrinsic rewards, as well as a de-emphasis on extrinsic rewards. In the process, leaders show their high expectations to followers, and they also purpose to assist them in gaining self-confidence, as well as self-efficacy. However, it is significant to take note of the fact that this leadership approach also has criticisms in that, first, it utilises impression management and as such, makes leaders have amoral self-promotion. Secondly, this leadership approach is difficult to be either taught or trained, owing to the fact that it combines a variety of leadership theories (Kotter, 1990). Thirdly, followers might be under the manipulation of their leaders, and as such, it is clear that they may lose much than they may gain.

Authentic leadership

This leadership approach asserts that leaders should act according to their personal values, as well as convictions, in order to be able to enhance credibility, and thereafter, win the respect, and also the trust of their followers (Walumbwa et al. 2008). It is clear that this leadership approach is ethical, transparent, and also genuine, and as such, it leads to a positive development of an organisation. It is evident that this leadership approach promotes a positive approach. Authentic leadership is composed of four basic elements, which include self-awareness, relational transparency, internalised moral perspective, as well as balanced processing. Self-awareness requires leaders to have an understanding of their values, weaknesses, as well as strengths (Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958). Relational transparency implies that leaders are expected to express themselves genuinely to their followers and as such, share vital information openly with them. On the other hand, balanced processing implies that leaders should objectively analyse all the vital information, prior to making decisions. Finally, internalised moral perspective refers to the conduct of a leader, guided by vital internal morals, which align their behaviours to these values (Walumbwa et al. 2008). The criticism against this approach is that in its formative stages, some concepts are not developed fully. Moreover, the moral component is not explained fully and it is also unclear how certain high values such as justice purposely inform authentic leadership (Yukl, 2010). Continue your exploration of Leadership's Impact on Strategic Success with our related content.

Dig deeper into Rebutting Presumption of Advancement with our selection of articles.

Comparisons

Clearly, based on literature review, transactional leadership, transformational leadership, and authentic leadership are similar in certain ways. This is provided as follows: First, whilst debating about which leadership approach that is significant and much better than the other amongst the three aforementioned approaches, it can be deduced that they are all valid and what matters is their context (McGregor, 1960). Notably, some organisations prefer rigidity, and also a clear command chain. On the other hand, others work best in an instance where leadership establishes goals and also sets examples. Moreover, others work best in instances where there are ethical, transparent, and also genuine dealings, thus leading to a positive development of an organisation. Secondly, all of the aforementioned types of leadership might be required in an organisation, in order to provide a counter-balance of each other, thus, helping in achieving growth, as well as development goals in an organisation (Misumi, 1985). It is evident that transactional leaders are obligated to ensure that their team is running smoothly and as such, producing better results, whilst transformational leaders purpose to instil innovation, and thus, look forward to tomorrow (Yukl, 1994). On the other hand, authentic leaders ensure that they enhance credibility, and as such, win the respect, and also the trust of their followers. Significantly, incorporation of all the three approaches ensures that the organisation achieves its goals. Thirdly, all the three leadership approaches are regarded as agents of strategic change in organisations (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Fourthly, whilst formulating the organisation’s vision, there is a close emotional tie between the leader and the followers, which then is necessary for changing the belief systems, as well as attitudes of the followers. If the leader enforces a trustworthy model, which is represented in the organisation’s code of conduct, then change occurs easily. Finally, the leaders in these approaches foster performance, which is beyond expectations (Walumbwa et al. 2008).

Dig deeper into Leadership's Impact on Strategic Success with our selection of articles.

Contrasts

On the other hand, considering the reviews of the literature, transactional leadership, transformational leadership, and authentic leadership also differ in certain ways, which are presented as follows: First, it is evident that in the transactional leadership approach, stress is laid on the relationship between the leader and the followers. On the other hand, in the transformational leadership approach, much stress is laid on values, beliefs, as well as the needs of the followers (Statt, 1994). Contrary to all these, authentic leadership approach stresses on the idea that leaders should act according to their personal values, as well as convictions, in order to be able to enhance credibility, and thereafter, win the respect, and also the trust of their followers. Secondly, it is evident that transactional leadership approach is bureaucratic. On the other hand, transformational leadership approach is charismatic (Mumford et al, 2000). Contrary to these two, authentic leadership approach is ethical. Thirdly, transactional leadership focuses on planning and execution, whereas transformational leadership focuses on promoting innovation. On the other hand, authentic leadership focuses on enhancing the positive development of an organisation (Cole. and Kelly, 2016). Finally, the values of an authentic and charismatic leader are highly important. In this regard, if they have been well intentioned, they can elevate, and consequently transform the entire organisation. On the other hand, the values of a transactional leader are not so much significant, owing to the fact that they purposely set a clear structure at the beginning, with the assistance of employees, which therefore cannot impose anything on them without their agreement (Lewin, 1935).

Continue your exploration of Leadership's Impact on Strategic Success with our related content.

Conclusion

This essay deduces that indeed, leadership is a central and controversial topic for strategic organisational researchers. Different leadership approaches consequently impact the vision, growth, as well as the success of an organisation. This paper discusses scholarly views on transformational leadership, transactional leadership and authentic leadership. Their differences and similarities have been discussed and conclusively, it can be noted that depending on their contexts, these approaches can bring forth a positive implication to an organisation. It is also notable that if they are all incorporated in an organisation, they can possibly provide a counter-balance of each other, thus, helping in achieving growth, as well as development goals in an organisation.

References

Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision’. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), 19-31

Bass, B. M., &Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership’ (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., &Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.

Bass, B.M. (1985a). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1985b). Leadership: good, better best. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 26-40.

Blake, R. R., and McCane, A. A. (1991). Leadership Dilemmas: Grid Solutions. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Cole. G. A. and Kelly, P. (2016). Management Theory and Practice (Custom Edition). Cengage.

Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change. How Leadership differs from management. New York. Free Press.

Lewin, K. (1935). A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York, McGraw Hill.

McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.

Misumi, J. (1985). The behavioral science of leadership. An interdisciplinary Japanese research paradigm. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 11−35.

Northouse, G. P (2013). Leadership Theory and Practice. SAGE: USA.

Statt, D.A. (1994). Psychology and the World of Work. Houndmills: Macmillan, p335.

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review 36(2), pp.95-101

Walumbwa, F., Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Wernsing, T. and Peterson, S. (2008). Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory Based Measure. Journal of Management 34:1 (February 2008), pp. 89-126.

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organisation (3rd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations: Global Edition, 7th edn, Pearson Higher Education.