The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Barking up the wrong tree. On the Transformational

leadership theory
fallacies of the transformational
leadership theory
Jon Aarum Andersen 765
School of Business, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden Received 17 December 2013
Revised 2 April 2014
Accepted 3 April 2014
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to illustrate that the magnitude of interest in and of enthusiasm
for transformational leadership is out of proportion with its weaknesses.
Findings – The theory has some grave problems: there are conceptual limitations; managerial leadership
is conflated with political leadership; the theory is presented as a universal as well as a contingency theory;
the claim that transformational leaders are more effective is not empirically supported; and the use of the
term “followers” rather than “subordinates” creates confusion in the study of formal organizations. Finally,
and perhaps most fundamentally, does transformational leadership theory qualify as a managerial
leadership theory?
Research limitations/implications – Transformational leadership is a political leadership theory
and thus less relevant for managerial leadership.
Originality/value – This paper addresses the theoretical limitations of the transformational leadership
theory as well as the lack of empirical support regarding the effectiveness of transformational leaders.
Keywords Political leadership, Transactional leadership, Transformational leadership,
Effectiveness, Managerial leadership
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
Burns (1978) identified two types of leadership (transformative and transactional) on the
basis of a qualitative analysis of the biographies of political leaders. He (Burns 1978, p. 20)
viewed the transformational leader as one who “engages with others in such a way that
the leader and the follower raise one another to a higher level of motivation and morality.”
The transformational leader was posited in contrast to the transactional leader who
exchanges relevant rewards contingent on a display of desired behaviors. Bass (1997)
claimed that this kind of leadership is found in all countries, in all organizations and on all
hierarchical levels.
Since the original ideas about transformational leadership by Burns (1978) and
Bass (1985), a large number of developments and versions of the scales has been
launched (Bass, 1985, 1996; Seltzer and Bass, 1990; Bass and Avolio, 1997). Yukl
(1999b) has noted that the components of transformational behavior have varied
somewhat across different versions of the questionnaire, and more component
behaviors have been added. Recent empirical research is mainly based on Bass and
Riggio (2006).

The shortcommings of transformational leadership theory and research

The magnitude of interest in and of enthusiasm for transformational leadership is out
Leadership & Organization
of proportion with its weaknesses. The theory has some grave problems: there are Development Journal
conceptual limitations; the conflation of managerial and political leadership; the theory Vol. 36 No. 6, 2015
pp. 765-777
is presented both as a universal and as a contingency theory; the claim that © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
transformational leaders are more effective than transactional ones is not empirically DOI 10.1108/LODJ-12-2013-0168
LODJ supported; and the use of the term “followers” rather than “subordinates” creates
36,6 confusion in the study of formal organizations. Finally, does transformational leadership
theory qualify as a managerial leadership theory?

1. Conceptual weaknesses
A few researchers have been critical to the transformational leadership theory from
766 the performance perspective (e.g. Yukl, 1999a, 2010; Pawar, 2003, Tourish, 2013). Are the
dimensions of idealized influence, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation
and intellectual stimulation the reasons for or the description of for transformational
leadership? Further, the theory has a bias toward the relationship between the leader and
the followers, which limits its potential for explaining organizational effectiveness. There
is also a tendency in the theory to explain effectiveness in terms of skills and behaviors
rather than as outcomes of actions (Yukl, 2010).
Burns (1978) believed that all managers could be classified by leadership style
according to their propensity either for transactions with subordinates or for
transformations of subordinates. Bass (1985), on the other hand, viewed transactional
and transformational styles of leadership as being complementary rather than polar
constructs. He integrated the transformational and transactional styles by recognizing
that both styles may be linked to the achievement of goals.
When Bass (1985) tested Burns’ claims of there being two distinct forms of leadership,
he found, on the basis of data from 104 respondents, that the correlation between
transactional and transformational leadership was significant, at 0.72. Bass (1985, p. 201)
wrote: “Those who scored high in the transactional leadership did likewise in
transformational leadership.” Most researchers would have concluded that such a high
correlation implies that transactional and transformational leadership is (almost) the
same. Bass did not, however, and carried on. The continuation of this trajectory can be
regarded as most dubious methodologically (Yukl, 1989; Smith and Peterson, 1990).
Roughly speaking, 70 percent of the two forms are similar. With this high correlation in
mind, it is conspicuous that researchers – including those referred to here – who have the
data do not present this crucial correlation coefficient.
In Bass’ view, the transformational style is complementary to the transactional style
and is likely to be ineffective in the total absence of a transactional relationship between
the leader and the subordinate (Lowe et al., 1996). Arguably, managers can be both
transformational and transactional. As Bass (1985, p. 26) wrote, “[…] while conceptually
distinct, transformational and transactional leadership are likely to be displayed by the
same individuals in different amounts and intensities.”
Shamir (1995) considered, as did others, how it was possible for a leader to be both
transformative while simultaneously engaging in transactions with followers. It is
worthwhile to note that Howell and Avolio (1993) and Lowe et al. (1996) reported a high
correlation between the transformational factors and contingent rewards, which is an
element in transactional leadership. Transformational leaders use a combination of these
two kinds. Strictly speaking; the implication of the theoretical basis and of the high degree
of empirical relationship is this: there are two types of leadership, namely, transactional
leadership; and transactional leadership combined with transformational leadership.
Yukl (2010) claimed that the distinction between transactional and transformative
leaderships is an unwarranted oversimplification of a complex phenomenon.
There is a growing movement on critical management theory which addresses the
somehow inflated self-image of leaders presented in current research. Fournier and Grey
(2000, p. 7) described the conditions and prospects of critical management theory which they
claim “is unified by an anti-performance stance.” Transformational leadership theory, which Transformational
strongly argues that transformational leadership is the key to organizational performance, is leadership theory
thus directly under attack from the critical management theory. Alvesson and Sveningsson
(2003) have argued that more inductive, longitudinal and narrative work is needed to better
comprehend the phenomenon of leadership. Researchers interested in the topic of leadership
may face settings in which employees do not seem concerned about strong asymmetrical
relationships that fit the “leadership style” concept (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2007). These 767
five authors, however, do not refer explicitly to the transformational leadership theory or any
other leadership or management theory. Alvesson and Kärreman (2007) emphasized the
importance of empirical experiences as an input for research which links to Tengblad (2012).
He addressed one of the most central issues in the field of management by focussing on what
managers actually do at work. An experience-based perspective is taken by using the
behavior and activities of knowledgeable and experienced managers as the primary data for
theorizing about management. This practice perspective draws attention to how
management practices are performed in everyday work. Moreover, Tengblad (2012)
addressed a fundamental leadership question: why do managers work in very different ways
than most leadership literature describes?

2. Managerial vs political leadership

The applicability of transformational leadership in economic organizations, in comparison to
its applicability in social movements, has not been assessed (Pawar, 2003). There is a need to
examine the distinction between transformational leadership in social and political contexts
and in corporations. It is imperative to note that Burns’ (1978) focus was on leadership at the
level of societies and movements. This scope for evaluation of goals and means in societies
can be contrasted with the typical situations in private enterprises. Firms are goal-oriented
entities. Thus, the applicability of ideological leadership that can emerge and operate at a
societal level may be constrained in private and public organizations (Pawar, 2003). Is it
appropriate, as Bass (1985) did, to extend Burns’ (1978) conceptualization of transformational
leadership in social movements to the organizational context of firms?
For theoretical development and empirical research it is imperative to distinguish
managerial leadership from political leadership. Sayer (1992, p. 91) has written: “What
does the existence of this object (in its present form) presupposes? A key question could
be: What cannot be removed without making the object cease to exist in its present form?”
If the object is managerial leadership, we may ask: what properties must exist for
leadership to exist and to be what it is? What makes managerial leadership possible?
The argument here is that leader, subordinates, and tasks are the properties that must
exist for managerial leadership to be what it is. The terms “leader” or “manager” refer to a
position in a group or organization. A formal leader (manager) is a person who is
responsible both for the subordinates and for the results.
A problem when dealing with leadership comes from different ideas about what to lead
and whom to lead. Managers lead business enterprises or public agencies. Other leaders lead
political, religious, and humanitarian movements. It is often assumed that those to be led
(and the leader) pursue a common goal (e.g. Hogan et al., 1994). Leadership is related to
groups, which are based on common goals. But this is not so in management. Organizations
are not based on common goals. Organizations are established to solve tasks in order to
achieve given goals. The major goals are decided by the owners. The people, who constitute
the majority of the working population, work in private or public organizations in order to
achieve the goals of the shareholders or owners of companies or the citizens of their society.
The employees may, however, support the goals of the organization more or less sincerely.
LODJ Now, what is the difference between managerial and political leadership?
36,6 The core of managerial leadership is that managers are hired to contribute to the
attainment of organizational goals, which can only be achieved by having
subordinates performing tasks that lead to productivity and effectiveness. The goals
of organizations are not a problem for managers. It is the reason why they hold
executive positions.
768 Political and religious leaders have followers (e.g. supporters, members,
participants). The goal is the goal of the leader or a common goal. The followers are
not given specific tasks to do. Definitions of leadership may permit a leadership concept
that does not include tasks (e.g. Marturano et al., 2013). Thus political leadership is
pinpointed. To conflate managerial leadership with political leadership creates
problems especially when it is argued that scholarship on political leadership is
relevant and useful for managerial leadership.

3. A universal or a contingency theory?

Bass (1985) claimed that transformational leadership is superior to other kinds of leadership.
Others also assert that the transformational leadership theory is a universal theory, implying
that transformational leaders are more effective than a transactional ones no matter what the
organizational specifics might be or what country in which it is practiced or what kind of
organization adopts it (Smith and Peterson, 1990; Hughes et al., 1999). We may scrutinze
these bold claims.
Theories on leadership effectiveness are either universal (i.e. asserting that there is one
best way to lead) or contingent (i.e. effectiveness depends on the situation or context).
The corollary is that a theory cannot be both universal and contingent. Several scholars
have claimed that transformational leadership is always more effective than transactional
leadership. With these propositions in mind, can we say that the transformational theory
is really a universal one? Bass (1985) stated that environmental and organizational
characteristics are likely to have an impact on the degree to which transformational
leadership results in organizational effectiveness. If that is the case, then it is not a
universal theory.
The universal theories were denounced by Fiedler’s (1967) seminal work by
introducing situational factors into explanations of effectiveness. A large number of
researchers report support for contingency factors: Howell and Avolio (1993) for
innovation, Lowe et al. (1996) for stable vs turbulent environments, industrial sector
and organization size; Waldman and Yammarino (1999) for environmental volatility;
Shamir and Howell (1999) for organization culture; Peterson et al. (2009) for start-up vs
established firms; Walter and Bruch (2010) for organizational structure; Menges et al.
(2011) for affective climate and trust climate; and Rowold (2011) for facets of team
members’ heterogeneity. Additionally, Mannheim and Halamish (2008) did not find
support for the predicted universality of the theory.
The argument in favor of the universal theory is pushed too far (Yukl, 1999a). Hughes
et al. (1999) have noted that the relationship between organizational context and
transformational leadership has received inadequate research attention. Different types of
organizational contexts can create different degrees of need for transformational
leadership. Pawar (2003) contains a critique of the existing transformational leadership
research. He stressed, as Yukl (2010) did, the need for examining the organization’s
context influences on transformational leadership.
Antonakis et al. (2003) and Bass and Riggio (2006) have emphasized that environmental
and organizational factors will most likely influence the degree to which transformational
leadership impacts organizational effectiveness. No explicit situational (contextual) Transformational
variable is present in the theoretical framework. However, in order to “save” the theory, leadership theory
situational arguments inevitably resurface from time to time.

4. Transformational leaders enhance effectiveness

Definitions. The claim that transformational leaders are more effective is based on the
assumption that transformational leadership is applicable of in private companies. 769
Efforts to establish a link between leadership and effectiveness are hampered by the
absence of a generally agreed definition of the latter (Pounder, 2001). The first issue to
be addressed refers to the definition of effectiveness. The second issue refers to the
difference between effectiveness and performance. Are effectiveness and performance
ratios or one-unit concepts? Are they are dependent or independent variables? Finally,
is effectiveness an objective or subjective measure?
When it is claimed that transformational leadership impacts organizational effectiveness,
the definition of effectiveness becomes crucial. Several scholars have concluded that there is
little consistency amongst researchers regarding the concept of organizational effectiveness
(e.g. Hoy et al., 1994). Achieving specific goals is the dominant aspect of the organizational
effectiveness construct. Strasser et al. (1981, p. 323) defined organizational effectiveness
as “the degree to which organizations are attaining all the purposes they are supposed to.”
The goals to be pursued are decided by the owners of the organizations. Several scholars
have used the term of leader effectiveness either as a synonym of organizational
effectiveness or left it undefined (e.g. Lowe et al., 1996; Judge and Bono, 2000).
Arguably, the ultimate goal of a company is profitability (i.e. return on assets)
(Shetty, 1979; Nash, 1983; Walton and Dawson, 2001). Profitability can be seen as the
major criterion of effectiveness for private enterprises. Profitability, moreover, is the most
conventional measure of current business performance (Hambrick, 1983). Additionally,
when effectiveness is defined as the degree of goal-attainment and the goal is
profitability, it is imperative to stress that the question emerges regarding which degree
of profitability. It is the owners who decide what degree of profitability to be the goal of
the company depending of their investment horizon and risk level.
Effectiveness vs performance. Lowe et al. (1996) wrote that less is known about how
the choice of criterion measures affects research outcomes on the relationship between
leadership and effectiveness. It is imperative to distinguish between concepts, which are
relational (ratios) like effectiveness, efficiency, productivity and profitability, and those,
which are one-entity concept like performance, sales, profit, and stock prices.
Additionally, it is imperative to distinguish between independent and dependent
variables. Organizational effectiveness is a dependent and an end variable. Performance
variables like profit, sales, stock prices as well as efficiency and productivity are
independent variables which may enhance organizational effectiveness.
A number of studies, which are seen as giving support to the notion of the superiority
of the transformational leadership, are based on the concept and measurement of
performance. As performance is a one-unit concept and an independent variable it cannot
be used to claim relationships with effectiveness. According to Lowe et al. (1996) the MLQ
scales have been related to a range of effectiveness criteria and to a variety of
organizational measures of performance such as supervisory ratings, the number
of promotion recommendations and military-performance grades. Judge and Bono (2000)
have investigated linkages between transformational leadership and a number of
outcomes that reflect what they denote “leadership effectiveness” using five subjective
LODJ criteria. These criteria are, however, independent factors. They may enhance effectiveness
36,6 (e.g. subordinates’ motivation), but these factors do not measure organizational
effectiveness as such. The investigation of Ployhart et al. (2001) is based entirely on
non-technical dimensions of performance and not on effectiveness.
The study of Peterson et al. (2009) is one of the few which has investigated the
relationship between transformational leadership and organizational effectiveness.
770 Firm performance was measured as performance-to-plan and represented the degree
to which an executive targeted net income goals for the year. Peterson et al. (2009) did
find a positive, significant relationship between transformational leadership
and effectiveness (firm performance), but they did not report to what degree this
kind of leadership explains performance (i.e. r2). If transformational leadership
explains, say 30 percent, we would be more eager to know the factor(s), which
explained the major part (70 percent) of organizational effectiveness. Based on this
study it is not possible to claim that transformational leadership enhances
organizational effectiveness.
Methodology. Yukl (1999b) has pointed out that one of the many limitations of the
theory is its overreliance on weak methods. Most studies on transformational
leadership are problematic because the findings are based on ratings of leader
behavior and effectiveness completed by the same source, that is, the subordinate, at
a common point in time (e.g. Seltzer and Bass, 1990; Lowe et al., 1996; Hur et al., 2011).
The vast majority of studies are based on responses from the subordinates regarding
to what degree they feel, think or assume that their respective manager is successful.
Seltzer and Bass (1990) have measured subordinates’ perceptions regarding
the effectiveness of “your managers in terms of satisfying work related needs of
the subordinates” and “the degree of work effectiveness in your own department.”
If your manager shows consideration for you as an individual and motivates and
inspires you, would you not consider your manager to be effective? Indeed, Seltzer
and Bass (1990) have stated that despite the anonymous treatment, subordinates
may have been reluctant to give honest answers, especially negative ones.
This mono-method bias has likely contributed to inflated correlations between
subordinates’ ratings of leader behavior and subordinates’ ratings of leader
effectiveness, since the respondents strive for cognitive consistency in their responses
to the dependent and independent variables (Lowe et al., 1996).
Transformational leaders are postulated to be responsible for performance beyond
ordinary expectations (Bass, 1985). Research has shown that subordinates always prefer
a transformative leader (Hughes et al., 1999). Additionally, Lowe et al. (1996) have found
that transformational behaviors were more frequently observed than transactional
behaviors across all studies. If there are more transformational than transactional leaders
and transformational leaders are more effective, then we are blessed. Most leaders and
most organizations are effective. But is this really so?
Objective vs subjective measures. Lowe et al. (1996) have asked what might serve as
valid and accurate measures of organizational effectiveness. They suggested a dichotomy,
with one group being studies that use the effectiveness criterion labeled “subordinate
perceptions of leader effectiveness,” and the other, objective measures (e.g. profitability or
percent of goals met), which they labeled “organizational measures of leader effectiveness.”
The study of Ployhart et al. (2001) is based entirely on subjective ratings of non-technical
dimensions of performance and not on objective performance or effectiveness criteria.
Özaralli (2003) investigated how transformational leadership was related to team
effectiveness based on subjective responses from employees regarding their teams’ Transformational
effectiveness in terms of innovativeness, communication and team performance. leadership theory
Seltzer and Bass (1990) did find that transformational leadership could explain the
satisfaction of subordinates and the subordinates’ assessment of their managers’
effectiveness better than other leadership styles. Subordinates satisfaction does not
necessarily enhance organizational effectiveness (Pounder, 2001). Several studies
show that transformational leaders are seen (subjectively) by their superiors as being 771
more effective. Seltzer and Bass (1990) have referred to a number of studies which
show that transformational leaders are more effective than transactional ones
when – and only when – the perception of the subordinates is investigated. Cammock
et al. (1995) have acknowledged the errors such as halo, leniency and bias of
subjective measures.
Lowe et al. (1996) performed a meta-study performed on the basis of 37 investigations.
The correlations between leadership behavior and effectiveness were higher for
transformational than for transactional scales. They (Lowe et al., 1996) concluded that the
results of their meta-analysis support the belief that transformational leadership is
associated with work-unit (not organizational effectiveness) effectiveness. All hypotheses
tested show higher associations between transformational scales and effectiveness than
between transactional scales and effectiveness. In the meta-study by Lowe et al. (1996),
only one out of the 22 studies used objective measures of organizational effectiveness.
It appears to be a positive relationship between transformational leadership and
effectiveness across different contexts, when effectiveness is measured subjectively. We
are thus compelled to conclude that these studies were hardly relevant for business
companies, their owners and their managers.
Lowe et al. (1996) concluded that the type of criterion used to define and measure
effectiveness is a powerful moderator of the relationship between MLQ scales
and effectiveness. This large difference likely occurs owing to a combined effect of a
mono-method bias and a fundamental difference in how effectiveness is measured.
The claim that the transformational leader is more effective than other leaders lacks
support when effectiveness is measured objectively (Lowe et al., 1996).
Yukl (2010) has concluded that the theory does not provide a good explanation for a
strong effect of CEO behavior on the financial performance of a company. Survey studies
on leader use of transformational behaviors (as perceived by the subordinates) have
found only weak and inconsistent correlations. When effectiveness is measuring as
a ratio and objectively, it cannot be claimed that transformational leaders are more
effective than transactional ones.
The relationship between leadership and effectiveness will always depend on how
effectiveness is defined and measured empirically. There are, indeed, few studies of
outcomes of transformational leadership related to objective measures of effectiveness.
It is not surprising, therefore, that there have been calls for more objective measures of
effectiveness (e.g. Cammock et al., 1995).
Again, the claim that transformational leaders are more effective lacks support
when effectiveness is measured objectively. However, that is not all. When performing
a meta-analytic test, Judge and Piccolo (2004) have found that transformational
leadership failed to predict leader job performance. Prenkert and Ehnfors (1997) have also
found that transformational leadership could not explain effectiveness (degree of goal
achievement) in a public organization. However, the subordinates regarded
transformational leaders to be more effective than other leaders.
LODJ For business companies subjective measures of effectiveness are irrelevant.
36,6 Although Seltzer and Bass (1990, p. 701) have written that “Further research is
needed using ‘hard-data’ outcomes,” profitability is hardly ever used. If effectiveness
is a dependent variable and defined as a ratio; the degree if goal attainment; the goal
is profitability; and the measurement of profitability is an objective one, then there
is virtually no evidence that transformational leadership explains organizational
772 effectiveness.
5. Followers or subordinates?
Burns’ consistent use of the term follower instead of subordinate is unfortunate
especially as contemporary scholars do the same. According to Webster’s Dictionary
(1989, p. 551) a follower is “a person who follow others in regard to his ideas and
belief; disciple or adherent.” The term is a synonym of adherent, meaning one who
gives full loyalty and support to another. Follower may apply to people who attach
themselves either to the person or beliefs of another; or of adherent, which suggests
a close and persistent attachment; or disciple, implying a devoted allegiance to the
teachings of one chosen as a master; or even partisan, which suggests a zealous often
prejudiced attachment (Webster’s Dictionary 1989, p. 551). Nothing is gained by
calling individuals in subordinate positions for followers. Jung (p. 380) has written:
“The real facts do not change, whatever names we give them. Only we ourselves are
affected.” Political and religious leaders have followers. Managers have subordinates,
not followers. This kind of muddling is illustrated in Seltzer and Bass (1990, p. 694),
who – in the very same sentence – use these two terms indiscriminately:
“Transformational leaders may inspire their followers, may deal individually with
subordinates to meet their developmental needs […].”
Contemporary researchers use the term follower even if their investigations concern
private companies or public agencies (e.g. Simola et al., 2010; Nahum-Shani and Somech,
2011; Nielsen and Cleal, 2011; Tims et al., 2011). It is indicative of this implicit bias that
Nahum-Shani and Somech (2011) employ the word follower 71 times and subordinate
only three times. Similarly, Simola et al. (2010) use the term follower 50 times and never
refer to subordinate at all. Do we want managers to perceive and interact with their
subordinates the way religious and political leaders do?

Transformational leadership and leadership theory

The conceptual weaknesses has been addressed as well as the conflation between
political and managerial leadership. Transformational leadership theory was originally
and is basically a universal theory. What is needed is the pursuance of contingency
variables in order to explain effectiveness as several researchers have found that there
are mediating mechanisms, moderators and contexts. The claim of Seltzer and Bass
(1990, p. 693) that “superior leadership performance, transformational leadership, is
seen when […]” is not substantiated. There is virtually no evidence for
transformational leadership causing organizational effectiveness if effectiveness is
defined as goal attainment and measured objectively. Additionally, more research is
need on effectiveness defined as goal-attainment and based on objective measures.
However, perceived transformational leadership explains perceived outcomes. It is
suggested that further research on transformational leadership would benefit from the
exclusion of the term follower in favor of the term subordinate. Only political and
religious leaders have followers. Managers in private firms and public agencies have
subordinates.
 Yukl (1999b, p. 45) wrote: “Theories of transformational and charismatic Transformational
leadership contribute to our understanding of leadership effectiveness, but their leadership theory
uniqueness and contribution have been exagerated.” Here, this critical view is taken
one step further.
The most obvious fallacy of the transformational leadership theory is that the
theory neglects or only superflously deals with what leadership is all about. If
leadership is regarded as the set of behaviors that one or more individuals in a group 773
or organization exibit, which involves systematic influences that seek to induce other
people to perform tasks or to solve problems in order to attain the goals of the group
or organization, then three main components emerge: leaders, subordinates and tasks.
Burns (1978) does not deal with the challenge of making followers to perform tasks in
order to achieve organizational goals. His book contains 466 pages of running text
and an index of 992 words. If task is a part or a central part of leadership we would
expect to find task mentioned in the running text and amongst the almost 1,000
words in the index. This is not the case. Neither Bass (1985) nor Seltzer and Bass
(1990) nor Bass and Riggio (2006) contain the word “task” in the index. Yukl (2010,
p. 289) has also noted that the transformational leadership theory “does not explain
the task-oriented functions of leaders that are essential for the effective performance
of a team.” Yet Stone et al. (2004) have stressed that transactional leaders have focus
on solving tasks.
In formal organizations there is no manager unless there are subordinates and vice
versa. And there is no management unless there are tasks to solve. The tasks of
managers involve the basic activities of planning and decision making, organizing,
leading and controlling. The subordinates are given tasks to solve in order to produce
goods or services demanded by customers. Only in that way the organization can
achieve its goal. The argument here is that manager, subordinates and tasks are the
properties must exist for managerial leadership to exist.
Transformational leadership has a stronger focus on changing the followers than on
changing the organization. Burns’ transformational leadership is about influencing
followers, doing something with the followers. Yukl (2010) has critized what he denotes
as “a narrow focus on dyadic processes.” There is a disproportionate empasis on the
relationship between the leader and his or her follower. Burns (1978), however, does not
deal with the challence of making followers to perform tasks in order to achieve goals.
It is leadership without tasks.
Because Burns’ (1978) work is without references to business companies or public
agencies, the scope of the transformational theory is narrow. As Burns (1978, p. 4) has
written: “The transforming leader recognizes and exploits an existing need or
demand of a potential follower. But, beyond that, the transforming leader looks for
potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full
potential of the follower.”
It is evident that the purpose of transformational leadership and the focus of
the transforming leader is to convert followers. Burns’s background in political
science has made a strong impact on this theory, which makes it less relevant
for people in formal leadership positions (managers) in firms and public
organizations.
Managers are hired to contribute to the attainment of organizational goals, which
can only be done by having subordinates performing tasks that lead to productivity
and effectiveness. Blake and Mouton (1982, p. 24) still offer us a most useful reminder:
“The exercise of leadership involves a task to be accomplished and people to do it.
LODJ These two concerns are interdependent; one can’t be had without the other.” Since the
36,6 property of task is missing in transformational leadership, it is basically a theory of
political leadership. As researchers in pursuit of managerial leadership, it behooves
us to ask: are we barking up the wrong tree?

References
774
Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. (2007), “Constructing mystery: empirical matters in theory
development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1265-1281.
Alvesson, M. and Sveningsson, S. (2003), “The great disappearing act: difficulties in doing
‘leadership’ ”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 359-381.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003), “Context and leadership: an
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 261-295.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1996), “Antecedent predictors of a ‘full range’ of leadership and management styles”,
Technical Report No. 1040, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social
Sciences, Alexandria, VA.
Bass, B.M. (1997), “Does the transactional/transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries?”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 130-139.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1997), Revised Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,
Mind Garden, Redwood City, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational leadership, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1982), “A comparative analysis of situationalism and 9,9
management by principle”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 20-43.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Cammock, P., Nilakant, V. and Dakin, S. (1995), “Developing a lay model of managerial
effectiveness: a social constructionist perspective”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 32
No. 4, pp. 443-474.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967), A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Fournier, V. and Grey, C. (2000), “At the critical moment: conditions and prospects of critical
management studies”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 7-32.
Hambrick, D.C. (1983), “Some tests of the effectiveness and functional attributes of miles and
snow’s strategic types”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 5-26.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G.J. and Hogan, J. (1994), “What we know about leadership. Effectiveness and
personality”, American Psychologist, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 439-504.
Howell, J.M. and Avolio, J. (1993), “Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of
control, and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated-business-unit
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 891-902.
Hoy, F., van Fleet, D.D. and Yetley, M.J. (1994), “Comparative organizational effectiveness
research leading to an intervention strategy”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 443-462.
Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C. and Curphy, G.J. (1999), Leadership, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Hur, Y.-H., van der Berg, P.T. and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2011), “Transformational leadership as a Transformational
mediator between emotional intelligence and team outcomes”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 591-603.
leadership theory
Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2000), “Five-factor model of personality and transformational
leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 751-765.
Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004), “Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic
test of their relative validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 755-768. 775
Lowe, K.B., Kroek, K.G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), “Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 385-425.
Mannheim, B. and Halamish, H. (2008), “Transformational leadership as related to team outcomes
and contextual moderation”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 29 No. 7,
pp. 617-630.
Marturano, A., Wren, T. and Harvey, M. (2013), “Editorial. The making of leadership and the
humanities”, Leadership and the Humanities, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Menges, J.I., Walter, F., Vogel, B. and Bruch, H. (2011), “Transformational leadership climate:
performance linkages, mechanisms, and boundary conditions at the organizational level”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 893-909.
Nahum-Shani, I. and Somech, A. (2011), “Leadership. OCB and individual differences: idiocentrism
and allocentrism as moderators of the relationship between transformational and
transactional leadership and OCB”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 353-366.
Nash, M. (1983), Managing Organizational Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Nielsen, K. and Cleal, B. (2011), “Under which conditions do middle managers exhibit transformational
leadership behaviors? – an experience sampling method study on the predictors
of transformational leadership behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 344-352.
Özaralli, N. (2003), “Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and
team effectiveness”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6,
pp. 335-344.
Pawar, B.S. (2003), “Central conceptual issues in transformational leadership research”,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 397-406.
Peterson, S.J., Walumba, F.O., Byron, K. and Myrowitz, J. (2009), “CEO positive psychological
traits, transformational leadership, and firm performance in high-technology start-up and
established firms”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 348-368.
Ployhart, R.E., Lim, B.C. and Chan, K.Y. (2001), “Exploring relations between typical and
maximum performance ratings and the five factor model of personality”, Personal
Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 809-843.
Pounder, J.S. (2001), “ ‘New leadership’ and the university organisational effectiveness: exploring
the relationship”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 281-290.
Prenkert, F. and Ehnfors, M. (1997), “A measure of organizational effectiveness in nursing
management in relation to transactional and transformational leadership: a study in a
Swedish hospital”, Journal of Nursing Management, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 279-287.
Rowold, J. (2011), “Relationship between leadership behaviors and performance: the moderating
role of a work team’s level of age, gender, and cultural heterogeneity”, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 628-647.
LODJ Sayer, A. (1992), Method in Social Science: a Realist Approach, Routledge, London.
36,6 Seltzer, J. and Bass, B.M. (1990), “Transformational leadership: beyond initiation and
consideration”, Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 693-703.
Shamir, B. (1995), “Social distance and charisma: theoretical notes and an exploratory study”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-47.
776 Shamir, B. and Howell, J.M. (1999), “Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence
and effectiveness of charismatic leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 257-283.
Shetty, Y.K. (1979), “New look at corporate goals”, California Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 71-79.
Simola, S.K., Barling, J. and Turner, N. (2010), “Transformational leadership and leader moral
orientation: contrasting an ethic of justice and an ethic of care”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 179-188.
Smith, P.B. and Peterson, M.F. (1990), Leadership, Organizations and Culture, Sage, London.
Stone, A.G., Russell, R.F. and Peterson, K. (2004), “Transformational leadership versus servant
leadership: a difference in focus”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 349-361.
Strasser, S., Eveland, J.D., Cummings, D., Deniston, O.L. and Roman, J.H. (1981), “Conseptualizing
the goal and system models of organizational effectiveness – implications for
comparative evaluation research”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 321-340.
Tengblad, S. (2012), The Work of Managers: Towards a Practice Theory of Management, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2011), “Does transformational leaders enhance
their followers’ daily work engagement?”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 121-131.
Tourish, D. (2013), The Dark Side of Transformational Leadership. A Critical Perspective,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Waldman, D.A. and Yammarino, F.J. (1999), “CEO charismatic leadership: levels-of-management
and levels-of-analysis effects”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 266-285.
Walter, F. and Bruch, H. (2010), “Structural impacts on the occurrence and effectiveness of
transformational leadership: an empirical study at the organizational level of analysis”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 765-782.
Walton, E.J. and Dawson, S. (2001), “Managers’ perception of criteria of organizational
effectiveness”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 173-199.
Webster’s Dictionary (1989), Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
Language, Gramercy Books, New York, NY.
Yukl, G.A. (1989), “Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 251-289.
Yukl, G.A. (1999a), “An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 285-305.
Yukl, G.A. (1999b), “An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 33-48.
Yukl, G.A. (2010), Leadership in Organizations, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Further reading Transformational
Avolio, J. and Bass, B.M. (1988), “Charisma and beyond”, in Hunt, J.G, Baliga, B.R., Dachler, H.P. leadership theory
and Schriesheim, C.A. (Eds), Emerging Leadership Vistas, Heath, Lexington, MA,
pp. 29-49.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. (2003), “Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 207-218. 777
Muchiri, M.K., Cooksey, R.W. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2012), “Transformational and social
processes of leadership as predictor of organizational outcomes”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 662-683.

About the author

Professor Jon Aarum Andersen received his Doctoral Degree in Business Administration from
the Lund University, Sweden. Dr Andersen has written 14 university level textbooks and has 28
international research journal publications. He is affiliated to the Örebro University, Sweden and
a Visiting Professor at the Ljubljana University, Slovenia. Professor Jon Aarum Andersen can be
contacted at: jon.andersen@oru.se

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.