Management Vision, P.C.

Does the Definition Tell Us Much?

Leadership is a term that has been thrown around in organizational settings for a long time. So much so that the term itself has come caused frustration due to the range of meanings for which its definition contains. One hand, leadership can typify the kind of charismatic, and often selfishly destructive, behaviors of a Julius Caesar or Napoleon Bonaparte, while at other times we see the term bounded by the determined and effective pacifism of Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King. Both extremes make excellent arguments for what leadership is really all about. The trouble is they are poles apart!

In my last offering, I made an attempt at what represented an arguably academic discussion of the quandary that leadership can represent. (Click here to see: Does It Matter How You Define Leadership?) With my apologies to for sounding overly clinical, I am offering this discussion of leadership that will attempt to put some “flesh on the bones” of the term: Leadership. In so doing, it is my hope that I will offer some down to earth perspectives on leadership that can be of value to leaders in any organization.

Suffer the Academics a Little Longer. You’ll See My Point…

With this said, I will still rely on the benefits of the best that organizational science has to offer on the subject. Hang in there.

The science is solid and I believe its conclusions will make sense: Common sense that will empower you as a leader, and application that will be effective to impact subordinates to levels of greater effectiveness.

Organizational Science Brings Some Powerful Insights!

Leadership has been studied by behavioral theorists, organizational psychologists and social scientists from antiquity. However, the 20th century has seen the most intense studies in the field of leadership. For decades, such study has resulted in a natural ebb and flow of theories that have been tested, analyzed, re-tested and refined. Even though studies continue, leadership as a behavioral phenomenon is well defined for practical application.

The good news is that theoretical integration of leadership theory can bring bottom line value to almost any organization. Such value can be within reach of organizations and teams from the largest to smallest organizations.

Let’s Talk Transformational Leadership…

Of all of the elaborate and complex issues within the scholastic study of leadership a key concern is theoretical integration. In other words – “If we have learned anything in all those years, what can we apply from our knowledge that is readily trained in leaders, transferred to the workplace and applied for positive effect?”

The Answer: Transformational Leadership Theory!

Originally formulated by Bernard Bass (1985) and based on prior work related to concepts of charismatic leadership, this practical theory of leadership has undergone what amounts to the equivalent of being run over by a fleet of diesel trucks from a scientific perspective since Bass proposed the theory and as it exists today. Heck, the title alone sounds almost “too special”! In fact, Bass and his associates now refer to the theory as the Full Range Leadership Theory, which is arguably better. (Maybe not!?) In any event, the theory has changed little since the mid-1980s. Again, it has been tested, critiqued and largely confirmed as being valid.

More importantly, it is a theory that can be rapidly deployed, trained and used to bring effective improvement in any organizational environment. The evidence is in…

Here We Go – Transformational Leadership Theory…

The theory is composed of 3 levels, which represent tiers or typologies of leadership behaviors that are shown to be predictable of improved organizational performance as measured by a number of quantifiable factors. Yes, including increased profits. The 3 levels, low to high, represent constructs of leadership behaviors and attributes.
The lowest level is referred to as passive/avoidant behaviors, the second level consists of transactional behaviors, and behaviors at highest level are considered transformational. Within each typology are 9 single-order factors. Due to brevity, I will dispense with a description of these 9 factors. However, my next post will delve into these factors at greater length. However, of these 3 tiers and 9 typologies, the lowest tier and lowest 2 typologies are removed from our discussion of the theory at this point. We will discuss them in our next post.

The reason they are removed at this point is that the lowest tier, passive/avoidant behaviors, and the lowest 2 typologies, passive management by exception and laizzez-faire (“do nothing”) management are counterproductive and such behaviors need to be eliminated.

Please stay with me. You will like this.

Look at This Chart – It’s a Summary of Transformational Leadership Theory

So we took the lowest out. That leaves us with the two higher tiers, transformational and transactional and 7 remaining single-order factors.  This chart summarizes effective leadership behaviors in a logical and easily understood structure for organizational training.

Also note that I have divided the transformational tier into transformational and charismatic typologies. This is important and I will discuss in future posts.

So, What’s it Mean?

I’m glad you asked. The chart reflects behaviors that are almost always beneficial when applied by leaders within organizations. Additionally, it has been shown that if leaders increase their skills, behaviors, and attributions within each of these tiers and/or single-order factors that organizational effectiveness improves.

Hence the organization benefits as value increases through improved leadership.

It Seems Complicated…

It’s not really. My commitment is that you understand the theory in a way that can be of benefit to you, your developing leaders, your staff and your organization as a whole. There is more to come.

Reference

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