CONTRASTING BURNS AND BASS

Does the Transactional-Transformational Paradigm Live Up to

Burns’ Philosophy of Transforming Leadership?

DMITRY KHANIN

Both proponents and critics view the transactional-transformational paradigm (Bass, 1997, 1998) as
the brainchild of Burns’ (1978) philosophy of transforming leadership. However, Burns (2003)
has criticized the paradigm’s narrow managerialist orientation and the claim that it is uniformly
applicable to any culture and organization. In this article, I first summarize and articulate Burns’
(1978, 2003) and Bass’ (1985, 1998) approaches toward leadership, then compare them by using
a new four-dimensional framework. Extending previous research (Yukl, 2006), the framework rep-
resents a useful tool for detecting the commonalities and differences between leadership theories
with respect to the core dimensions, categories, and aspects of leadership. My inspection indicates
that Burns’ and Bass’ conceptions stem from disparate contexts and differ in their applicability. Thus,
Burns’ (1978) ideas stem from political movements ideally characterized by mutual quest for shared
meaning and active collaboration between leaders and followers. Conversely, Bass’ (1985) approach
springs from military training in which leaders transfer existing knowledge to followers and stimu-
late their activity by using a variety of tools from inspirational motivation to individualized consid-
eration. This study has important practical implications as it delineates the boundary conditions of
the transactional-transformational paradigm and warns against its uncritical adoption in incongruent
leadership contexts.

Introduction influencing the other’s perceptions and actions. Transform-

On the basis of his historical studies of American presidents
and of revolutionary movements and ideologies of the 20th
century, Burns (1978) has proposed that leaders may choose
to practice either transforming or transactional leadership.
According to Burns (1978), transforming leadership
represents a creative form of interaction between leaders and
followers in which both sides play a dynamic role in
ing leaders are truly receptive of their followers’ needs and
wants, seeking to elevate them so that they become able to
advance, eventually metamorphose into leaders, and, in turn,
show the way to their former mentors. Conversely, transac-
tional leadership, in Burns’ (1978) view, is based on making
mutually beneficial (but scheming) arrangements with
followers.

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES, Volume 1, Number 3, 2007

© 2007 University of Phoenix
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/jls.20022 7
 Utilizing Burns’ (1978) juxtaposition of transforming and
transactional leadership, Bass (1985, 1995) has put forth a
theoretical and empirical approach in leadership studies he
has named the transactional-transformational paradigm.
Importantly, as I argue in this article, Bass (1985, 1998) has
described both types of leadership in a very different way than
Burns (1978). Thus, according to Bass (1985), transforma-
tional leadership does not focus on a creative, mutually
enriching exchange between leaders and followers that cul-
minates in succession from old to new leadership. Instead,
transformational leadership, in Bass’ (1985, 1998) view,
hinges on assisting followers to enhance their performance
by using various complementary methods from charismatic
motivation to individualized consideration. Bass (1985,
1998) has also defined transactional leadership as allocating
punishments and rewards, as is central to any administration,
rather than as making mutually beneficial but underhanded
arrangements with followers (Burns, 1978).
Having described transactional leadership as an indispen-
sable ingredient of leadership, Bass (1985, 1998) has pro-
posed that its efficacy may be improved by fusing it with
evocative transformational leadership. Subsequently, numer-
ous studies have examined whether a mix of transformational
and transactional leadership would be more effective than
transactional leadership alone (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999;
Avolio, 1999). Although this research has yielded some use-
ful results, it has blurred the distinction drawn by Burns
(1978) between the inherently ethical, transforming leader-
ship and the manipulative and unprincipled transactional
leadership. Despite the essential discrepancies between Burns’
(1978) and Bass’ (1985, 1998) approaches, Bass and his fol-
lowers invariably portray Burns as the visionary forerunner of
the transactional-transformational paradigm. This attribution
became established in leadership studies. For instance, Judge
and Piccolo (2004, p. 755) state that “Bass (1985) based his
theory of transformational leadership on Burns’ (1978) con-
ceptualization, with several modifications or elaborations.”
In this article, I reexamine Burns’ (1978, 2003), and Bass’
(1985, 1996) ideas in parallel and rearticulate them to argue
that Burns and Bass and their followers have, in fact, created
two opposite and conflicting approaches to leadership.
Furthermore, I emphasize that the differences between Burns’
(1978) and Bass’ (1985, 1998) tenets are much more substan-
tial than recognized by the proponents of the transactional-
transformational paradigm. Not surprisingly, Burns (2003) has
developed some strong critiques of Bass’ and his followers’
contributions to leadership theory as a “traits” approach focused
8 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls
on leaders’ idiosyncrasies rather than on the creative interac-
tion between leaders and followers. Although the proponents
of the transactional-transformational paradigm have disre-
garded Burns’ (2003) second book on leadership, such lack of
attention appears inconsistent with the role they attribute to
Burns (1978) as their celebrated forebear.
In contrast, I analyze in this article how Burns’ (1978,
2003, 2006) ideas on leadership have progressed over time. I
also stress the importance of Burns’ (2003) critiques of the
transactional-transformational paradigm as being narrowly
managerialist in its interpretation of transformational lead-
ership as focused on enhancing follower performance, and at
the same time being too universalistic in claiming that its
propositions uniformly apply to any culture and organiza-
tion (Burns, 2003).
Today, many argue that a blind adoption of transforma-
tional leadership has done much harm, for instance, in the
area of public service organizations (Currie & Lockett, 2007).
The theory of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985, 1998)
is also increasingly criticized by its own followers. Sympto-
matically, scholars urge colleagues to loosen their adherence
to Bass’ (1985) original conception of transformational lead-
ership (Waldman, Siegel, & Javidan, 2006), emphasize au-
thentic rather than transformational leadership (Avolio, 2005;
Avolio & Gardner, 2005), and examine the impact of context
on the choice of leadership style (Antonakis, Avolio, Siva-
subramaniam, 2003) rather than assume the universality of
transformational leadership. At the same time, other scholars
(Rowold & Heinitz, 2007) argue that transformational lead-
ership, as originally claimed by Bass (1985, 1998), augments
the impact of transactional leadership and should be used to
energize the pedestrian transactional leadership.
Extending previous research (Yukl, 2006), I outline a new
four-dimensional framework as a means for detecting the
commonalities and differences between leadership theories
regarding the principal dimensions, categories, and aspects
of leadership. My analysis indicates that Burns’ (1978, 2003)
and Bass’ (1985, 1998) conceptions stem from different con-
texts and, thus, significantly differ in their applicability. Thus,
Burns’ (1978, 2003) ideas stem from political movements,
ideally characterized by mutual quest for shared meanings and
active collaboration between leaders and followers. Con-
versely, Bass’ (1985, 1998) approach springs from military
training in which leaders transmit existing knowledge to
followers and stimulate their activity by using a repertoire of
tools from inspirational motivation to individualized
consideration. This finding has important practical
implications as it helps to ascertain the boundary conditions
of Bass’ (1985, 1998) approach and cautions against its un-
critical adoption in incongruent leadership contexts.
Practitioners interested in transforming followers’ wants
and needs have a choice between Burns’ (1978, 2003) and
Bass’ (1985, 1998) contrasting approaches to leader-follower
interface. While Burns’ (1978, 2003) inspiration was to turn
the leader-follower interaction into a mutually enriching,
dialogic process in which leaders and followers exchange ideas
and roles, Bass’ (1985, 1998) impetus was to enhance the
effectiveness of leaders’ sway over followers by infusing the
stick-and-carrots transactional leadership with some elements
of evocative, charismatic style. Each approach has its merits
and shortcomings. However, leaders operating in today’s com-
plicated world need to realize that an adoption of Burns’
(1978, 2003) philosophy would lead them to a more ethical
and authentic, collaborative, and creative style of leadership.
In an era when even most celebrated companies, such as
Apple Computer, led by its charismatic CEO Steve Jobs, have
become enmeshed in unethical conduct (backdating stock
options) in a clear exercise of transactional leadership (mak-
ing deals with followers), it is important to take a closer look
at our understanding of transformational (transforming) ver-
sus transactional leadership. Should leadership be uncom-
promisingly transforming, as envisaged by Burns? Or should
leadership rather be both transactional and transformational,
as proposed by Bass?
Burns’ Philosophy of Transforming
Leadership
Before writing his book on leadership, James MacGregor
Burns had a well established reputation as an accomplished
political scientist and historian. Burns’ work was dedicated to
individual political leaders (Franklin D. Roosevelt, Edward
Kennedy, and John Kennedy) and to the institutions and
mechanisms of democracy (studies of presidential government,
party politics, and the U.S. Congress). In contrast, his new
treatise (1978) contained a general theory of leadership.
Provocatively, Burns argued that contemporary studies of
leadership had failed to determine the exact meaning of the
very phenomenon they sought to examine. Numerous defini-
tions of leadership in the literature (more than 130) have only
obscured a bigger picture: “Is leadership simply innovation—
cultural or political? Is it essentially inspiration? Mobilization
of followers? Goal setting? Goal fulfillment? Is a leader a definer
of values? Satisfier of needs? If leaders require followers, who
leads whom from where to where, and why?” (1978, p. 2).
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls
LEADERSHIP AS COLL ABORATION
Burns (1978) believed that once the essence of leadership was
established, working out a useful classification of leadership
types would be possible. To begin with, he suggested differ-
entiating between leadership and rulership; Burns described
rulership as “power-holding,” that is, possession of formal
authority, and exercise of “naked” (or “brute”) power, that is,
essentially, rule through coercion. According to Burns (1978),
rulership is indifferent and unresponsive to the needs and
wants of followers. In contrast, leadership is based on inter-
action between leaders and followers in which both learn
from each other and collaborate.
ELEVATION VERSUS ADAPTABILIT Y
On the basis of his previous studies and a plethora of histori-
cal examples, Burns (1978) has argued that leadership can be
broken down into two principal types—transactional leader-
ship and transforming leadership. According to Burns (1978),
transactional leadership secures followers’ cooperation by
offering a mutually beneficial barter: “Leaders approach fol-
lowers with an eye to exchanging one thing for another: jobs
for votes or subsidies for campaign contributions” (1978, p. 4).
The main subtypes of transactional leadership include, in
Burns’ (1978) classification, opinion leadership, group lead-
ership, party leadership, legislative leadership, and execu-
tive leadership. Underlying these various subtypes of
transactional leadership are some common tactics that leaders
employ, such as adaptability. Adaptive leaders seek to find
out what their followers want and then promptly satisfy such
needs; as a result “leaders become hardly distinguishable from
followers. Relationships are dominated by quick calculations
of cost-benefits” (1978, p. 258).
Burns (1978) has pointed out, though, that a transactional
leader needs to play an active role by mediating among vari-
ous groups, reconciling their demands, and building overall
consensus. Roosevelt was an expert in this process: “a con-
summate manager of public opinion—probably, if one could
measure these things, the most skillful and effective in
American history” (1978, p. 281). Because followers can be
apathetic, isolated, and unmotivated, transactional leaders
need to work hard in order to aggregate their followers’ opin-
ions, draw them together, and mobilize them. In so doing,
transactional leaders essentially take on some entrepreneurial
functions and may spur even utterly bureaucratic, inefficient,
and stale organizations toward creativity.
However, transforming leaders, according to Burns (1978),
play a more principled role than their transactional counterparts
9
as they aspire to elevate followers’ wants to higher-order
needs. The crucial distinction between transactional and
transforming leaders lies in the quality that transforming
leaders do not seek to satisfy followers’ basic needs in order to
achieve their own objectives. Instead, they engage followers in
a mutually enriching interface that allows followers to realize
their higher-order needs and thus initiate a process of self-
growth and transformation.
ANTICONSENSUS VERSUS CONSENSUS
BUILDING
Intriguingly, Burns’ shining example of a transforming leader
was the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, Mao Tse-
Tung. Burns has criticized American scholars for portraying
the “Communist leadership in China as a simple process of
bullying the masses into submission or brainwashing them into
adulation” (1978, p. 228). He quoted with approval John W.
Lewis’s (1963) study in which Lewis claimed that Mao did not
base his actions on authority, but rather on the “reciprocal and
organized relationship between political leaders and the general
Chinese population” (1978, p. 238). Likewise, Burns (1978)
has argued that Mao Tse-Tung truly wanted to learn from his
followers and sincerely urged party leaders to follow suit. In
Burns’ (1978) view, it was the Chinese masses themselves who
dictated the Chinese Communist Party’s policies.
Although Burns has acknowledged that Mao’s reforms had a
destructive effect—“the erosion of personal liberty and privacy
was enormous” (1978, p. 457)—he still argued that Mao was
triumphant as a transforming leader in “raising consciousness,
and transforming values on a vast scale, mobilizing the higher
aspirations of the Chinese people” (1978, p. 457). Although it
may appear that Mao was merely a transactional leader acting
as a broker between various groups and constituencies, Mao’s
actions, in Burns’ (1978) view, were consistent with his ideology
of attaining the unity of opposites—“centralism and democracy,
discipline and freedom, both unity of will and personal ease of
mind and liveliness” (Burns, 1978, p. 457).
THE PRINCIPAL AT TRIBUTES
OF TRANSFORMING VERSUS
TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP
Burns (1978) has bemoaned the cult of the individual leader
and preference for a pragmatic, hard-nosed manager deeply
ingrained in Western democracies. Criticizing such a narrow-
minded stance, Burns (1978) has formulated the ABC of his
theory of leadership. First, he (1978) proclaimed that
10 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls
leadership is collective by definition and called on leadership
scholars to dispense with the illusion of one-man leadership. He
argued that leaders respond to their followers’ wants, and a
symbiotic relationship between leaders and followers is
formed as a result.
Burns (1978) has argued, however, that the interface
between leaders and followers needs to be mediated through
political movements that ultimately form the basis of
a political party. From this vantage point, Burns (1978) has
repudiated the American political system, in which neither
of the two most powerful parties enjoys the support of a spon-
taneous movement of the masses.
Second, Burns (1978) has defined leadership as “dis-
sensual.” Critical of strong appeals to build unity and coop-
eration among opposing forces, Burns (1978) argued that
party politics, or as he called them “conflictive politics,”
should be encouraged rather than restrained and moderated.
Burns (1978) has passionately asserted that Western democ-
racies have become too complacent, and hence, ineffective. To
end that impasse, Burns (1978) has proposed to build dis-
sent into the structure of all organizations, and even to spon-
sor radical parties—“right-wing as well as socialistic and other
left-wing parties” (Burns, 1978; 455) on a global scale, across
national boundaries, in order to undermine the bias of build-
ing consensus and unity inherent in Western democracies.
Third, Burns (1978) expressly defined leadership as
“causative.” The scholar has emphasized that as a result of an
interaction between leaders and followers both inevitably
change. The effects run from small modifications to
radical transformations. The apex of transformational
change, according to Burns (1978), is a formation of a new
institution—“a nation, a social movement, a political party,
a bureaucracy” (Burns, 1978, p. 454)—that continues to serve
its purpose after the leaders and followers whose interface had
led to its appearance are gone. Burns (1978) has argued,
though, that the political leaders who established the founda-
tion of the American political system also created obstructions
to its efficient functioning as a democracy by undermining
such causative effects. These obstructions made it harder for
leaders and followers to interact and thus “hobbled” American
leadership.
Fourth, leadership, according to Burns (1978), is “elevating.”
Both leaders and followers raise their consciousness during
the process of their interaction, and effective leaders relate to
their followers at all levels by exercising heroic leadership and
by leading spontaneous mass movements.
 Burns’ (1978) philosophy of transforming leadership has
had a strong impact upon leadership studies. His ideas led to
the emergence of the transactional-transformational paradigm
that dominated the leadership literature in the next decades.
Bernard Bass, who had published numerous books and articles
in the 1960s and 1970s (1973), experienced, in his words, an
eye-opening revelation when he first read Burns (1978). Bass
later wrote that he “had to wait 18 years for James MacGregor
Burns (1978) to lead the way” (1995, p. 466). In the follow-
ing section, I describe Bass’ and his followers’ model of
transactional-transformational leadership.
Bass: The Transactional-Transformational
Paradigm in Organizational Studies
TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP
In his book Leadership and Performance: Beyond Expectations
(1985), Bass has argued that the extant leadership literature
has solely examined the type of leadership that Burns (1978)
described as transactional. Numerous studies have explained
the relationship between the leader and follower from an eco-
nomic perspective as an exchange of material rewards for per-
formance on the basis of the assumption that people are solely
motivated by punishments and rewards. Transactional lead-
ership limits itself to a consideration of first-order changes,
that is, changes in degree, such as “an increase in quantity or
quality of performance, a substitution of one goal for another,
a shift of attention from one action to another, or a reduction
in the resistance to particular actions or the implementation of
decisions within a contextual framework” (1985, pp. 3–4).
Bass (1985) has argued, however, that various modes of
transactional leadership can be more or less effective. Thus,
leaders utilizing contingent rewards are more effective
than leaders utilizing noncontingent rewards. Leaders
resorting to noncontingent rewards are more effective than
leaders emphasizing contingent punishment. Leaders apply-
ing contingent punishment are more effective than leaders
employing noncontingent punishment. Noncontingent
punishment is more effective than management by exception.
Finally, laissez-faire management is the least effective.
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Bass (1985) has introduced transformational leadership as an
alternative to transactional leadership. He has called on trans-
actional leaders to overcome their self-imposed limitations and
to refocus on a higher order of change: radical shifts in values,
introductions of new paradigms, restructuring of the
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls
contextual framework, and elevation of followers’ needs to a
higher level.
Bass (1985) has pointed out that transactional and trans-
formational leadership have many commonalities. Both can
be “directive, negotiative or persuasive, consultative,
participative, or delegative” (1985, p. 29). However, what
sets transformational leaders apart from transactional leaders
is their ability to motivate subordinates to accomplish more
than they would expect of themselves.
Bass (1985) has proposed that transformational leaders
may improve followers’ performance beyond expectations if
they succeed in accomplishing three interconnected objec-
tives: first, if they raise followers’ comprehension of the
importance and value of desired outcomes; second, if they
persuade followers to transcend their self-interest and embrace
collective goals; third, if they alter followers’ need level or
expand their portfolio of needs and wants.
BASS’ EXTENSION OF BURNS’
APPROACH
Bass (1985) has noted that while his approach was indebted
to Burns’ (1978) ideas on transactional and transformational
leadership, it was different in three respects. First, Bass (1985)
has argued that the task of a transformational leader is not
only to raise the follower to a higher level of consciousness, as
proposed by Burns (1978), but to expand the portfolio of
follower needs and wants. Second, unlike Burns (1978), who
asserted that transforming leadership is always morally
elevating, Bass (1985) has maintained that transformational
leaders may equally lead followers toward unconstructive,
negative, and reactionary goals. Third, unlike Burns (1978),
who has characterized transformational and transactional
styles of leadership as mutually exclusive, Bass has consis-
tently argued that “most leaders do both but in different
amounts” (1985, p. 22).
INGREDIENTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL
LEADERSHIP
Bass (1985) has proposed that transformational leadership
consists of several methods of influencing followers, such as
idealized influence (or charisma), inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. Using
officer training as his model, Bass wrote that the objectives of
transformational leadership can be accomplished by instilling
pride in trainees, using pep talks to build morale, acting as a
role model, providing personal encouragement to subordinates,
11
and making subordinates proud by complimenting their
performance (1985, p. 67).
THE QUESTION OF ETHICS
Bass maintained that transformational leadership can be
“moral or immoral” (1985, p. 73). Unlike Burns (1978), Bass
(1985) has characterized Mao Tse-Tung as a master manipu-
lator rather than as a leader truly interested in expressing fol-
lowers’ needs. He wrote that transformational leaders may
promote competition among their subordinates, play off
groups of subordinates against one another, and stir rivalry,
anxiety, and distrust. Bass (1985) has noted that such leaders
as Mao Tse-Tung and Lyndon Johnson effectively used this
type of “black-hatted approach.” The scholar claimed that
“the coercive, bullying, stemwinding, browbeating, aggres-
sive, combative leader can sometimes obtain remarkable
transformations” of subordinates (1985, p. 74).
As Bass’ (1985) ideas have gained currency, his conception
of transactional and transformational leadership has changed.
Most importantly, Bass has reconsidered his view that trans-
formational leaders may include in their repertoire unethical
methods if they are effective. This assertion has caused a
virtual outcry among proponents and critics alike.
A number of scholars have condemned manipulative trans-
formational-charismatic leaders (Howell & Avolio, 1992).
Reacting to such critiques and reversing the original
approach, Bass and his followers started referring to
manipulative leaders as “pseudo-transformational” (Bass &
Steidlmeier, 1999).
A NEW PARADIGM
Bass’ (1985) book has started an avalanche of empirical
studies, most employing various forms of the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by Bass. The
MLQ was geared to measuring what Bass described as “the
four ‘I’s of transformational leadership”—idealized influence
(charisma), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation,
and individualized consideration. In addition, the MLQ
estimated three components of transactional leadership—
contingent reward, active management by exception, and pas-
sive management by exception—as well as laissez-faire
management, sometimes defined as a “nonleadership
component.”
Encouraged by success, Bass (1997) began to describe his
approach as the dominant “transactional-transformational
12 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls
paradigm.” According to this new conceptualization, the
transactional-transformational paradigm was part and parcel
of neocharismatic theories of leadership including the attri-
butional theory of charisma (Conger & Kanungo, 1987), the
conception of visionary leadership (Sashkin, 1988), and
the 1976 theory of charisma (House, 1977).
Bass and Avolio (1993) have stated that the transactional-
transformational paradigm has three corollaries. The first
corollary affirms the existence of a hierarchy of leadership
styles from transformational (proved to be the most effective)
to laissez-faire (proved to be the least effective). The
second corollary posits a one-way augmentation effect—
transformational leadership adds to the explanation of trans-
actional leadership but not vice versa. The third corollary
postulates that true leadership is viewed everywhere without
exception as transformational.
Burns’ Reinterpretation of Transforming
Leadership
In his second book on leadership, Burns (2003) has reevalu-
ated his original approach to leadership and experienced some
significant changes in his understanding of its goals and
methods.
THE TRAITS APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
The goal of the traits approach, according to Burns, is
“ferreting out qualities that undergird leadership skills” (2003,
p. 10). Burns (2003) has described Bass and his followers’
work on leadership as generally following the traits approach,
and being “heavily management oriented” and universalistic
in claiming that its categories transcend cultural boundaries.
In contrast, Burns has set the objective of developing a more
flexible approach to leadership—“less comprehensive,
more guarded and nuanced, and subject to greater cultural
differences” (2003, p. 10).
THE SITUATIONALIST APPROACH
TO LEADERSHIP
Burns (2003) has proposed that a situationalist approach
zeroes in on examining the objective, historic causes of leader-
ship. Bass has criticized situationalist theories as overly de-
terministic and argued that leadership studies should seek the
middle ground between the two contrasting approaches: They
must both analyze followers’ needs and wants and examine
leaders’ traits with an eye to radically changing the world, “to
transcend and even to transform” (2003, p. 16).
LEADERSHIP AS A MULTIDISCIPLINE
The ultimate test of leadership studies, in Burns’ (2003) view,
is whether they can resolve the contradiction between deter-
minism and free will as alternative theories of causation.
Defining leadership theory as the X factor, Burns wrote that
this multilayered discipline of the future, or “multidiscipline,”
should synthesize a plethora of previously established intel-
lectual traditions. Specifically, leadership theory, in Burns’
(2003) opinion, should freely borrow ideas and distinct
approaches from psychology, political science, organization
theory, history, and literature.
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT
Burns (2003) has warned, however, that leadership theory
would only be able to accomplish this mission by following
strict guidelines. First, leadership theory needs to examine
the transactional and transformational leadership styles as
more or less appropriate in a certain historical context. Burns
(2003) wrote that FDR acted as a transactional leader during
the New Deal period when he chose a give-and-take approach
(purging Congress of several anti–New Deal Democrats)
instead of trying to mobilize the rank-and-file Democrats to
fight for a more liberal party. FDR, however, became a trans-
formational leader once he had the backing of the nation and
was able to institute more far-reaching reforms than he had
during his earlier administration.
THE PREVAILING ROLE OF
DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS
While Burns (2003) voiced some critical opinions of Amer-
ican democracy in his first book on leadership (1978), he
considerably changed his ideas in his latest work. Burns argues
now that transformational leadership is guided by trans-
forming values: “such lofty public principles as order, liberty,
equality (including brotherhood and sisterhood), justice, the
pursuit of happiness” (2003, p. 28). In other words, Burns
(2003) has affirmed that the ideals of American democracy
underlie true transformational leadership. Whereas Burns
formerly (1978) characterized the American system of checks
and balances and competing political parties as “hobbling”
transformational leadership, today he (Burns, 2003) praises it
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls
for revealing genuine conflicts existing in the popular
sentiment.
Burns (2003) has also changed his prior sympathetic atti-
tude toward Mao Tse-Tung, writing that the Chinese leader
“persistently manipulated conflict to cut down rivals, frus-
trate the emergence of formed opposition, and push forward
often-catastrophic policies against resistance within the Com-
munist party and in society” (2003, pp. 121–122). Critiquing
Mao Tse-Tung’s ideas, Burns wrote that it is not sufficient to
recognize the existence of conflict; China needs to accept
both the majority rule and minority rights as well as harness
conflict to advance to democratic values.
BRINGING LEADERSHIP DOWN
TO EARTH
Burns (2003) has argued that the original meaning of the
phrase “the pursuit of happiness,” coined by Thomas Jefferson
in his draft of the Declaration of Independence, was that all
people are entitled to satisfaction of their material wants and
needs. He emphasizes, however, that the task of ensuring that
everyone can become engaged in “the pursuit of happiness”
is far from accomplished. Hence, a theory of leadership can-
not continue as just an abstract, academic exercise in rheto-
ric. Instead, it should be applied to some concrete projects
such as fighting world hunger. Overhauling his previous
credo, Burns (2003) has argued that transforming leadership
is not only about raising people’s consciousness, but simply
about ways of improving people’s lives.
COLLECTIVE VERSUS PERSONAL
LEADERSHIP
In his recent book, Burns (2006) has reapplied his ideas on
transforming leadership to American presidents from JFK to
G. W. Bush. Burns has emphasized the “dangers of personal
leadership when practiced by aggressive power seekers” (2006,
p. 5) and critically assessed many American presidents and
political figures as falling short of exercising truly transform-
ing leadership because of their excessive reliance on scheming
transactional leadership. At the same time, Burns has praised
American “inventors, investors, industrialists, unionists,
developers, mayors, city planners, even teachers and writers”
and leaders at the grass roots who were able to transform the
entire country even though they acted “in the American style
of individualism” without recognizing the effect of their
actions on other people (2006, p. 195). Burns (2006) has
13
again called for a change in the focus of attention in leadership
studies from leaders at the top to followers whose actions and
ideas have a transforming effect on leaders.
The Forgotten Historical Antecedents of
the Dichotomy of Transformational and
Transactional Leadership
The proponents of the transactional-transformational para-
digm profess that Burns (1978) was the first to define and
contrast the transactional and transformational leadership
styles (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). How-
ever, the concept of transactional leadership was introduced
in the leadership literature long before the publication of
Burns’ (1978) foundational study. I believe that these earlier
contributions have been overlooked and remain obscure. In
his book Rebel Leadership, James V. Downton (1973) may
have formulated the first definition of transactional leader-
ship as interaction between leaders and followers in which
“both leader and follower are viewed as bargaining agents try-
ing to maximize their profits” (p. 84).
Downton (1973) argued that Weber was wrong in claim-
ing that charismatic authority constitutes one of the three
main types of leadership (along with traditional and the
rational-legal authority). He noted that charismatic rulership
is only one of the three main subtypes or bases of personal
leadership. The latter encompasses transactional leadership
(springing from interest-based interactions between leaders
and followers), inspirational leadership (originating in the
leader’s ability to inspire and direct followers’ efforts), and
charismatic leadership (stemming from the leader’s ability to
play the role of a “substitute ego-ideal for its followers” (1973,
p. 285).
Downton (1973) wrote that personal leadership represents
a commitment process subsuming both leaders and followers.
Such a process embraces the purely transactional aspects of
leadership (“the manipulation of rewards as well as punish-
ments”), the inspirational aspects of leadership (“the manip-
ulation of myths and symbols that give meaning to action
and suffering”), and finally, the charismatic aspects of lead-
ership (the provision of “security, a new identity, or cultural
reinforcement”) (1973, pp. 284–285). Thus, Downton
(1973) was the first to contrast a transactional type of lead-
ership based on a distribution of punishments and rewards
to inspirational and charismatic types of leadership that target
followers’ emotional needs. Downton (1973) also was the
first to propose that effective leadership needs to embrace all
14 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls
three of its core aspects—an assertion that created the foun-
dation of the transactional-transformational paradigm.
Burns’ Philosophy of Transforming
Leadership: An Articulation
Unlike Downton (1973), who has described the transactional
(or instrumental) leadership style as legitimate, Burns (1978)
has censured transactional leadership for not meeting the high
standards of true leadership. A scholar of Democratic presi-
dents and leaders—the Roosevelts and the Kennedys—Burns
was repelled by the incessant wheeling and dealing that he
had uncovered in the sanctum of Western democracies. While
Burns (1978) has emphasized that transactional leadership
can be adaptive and even creative and entrepreneurial in its
ability to build consensus among opponents, he called for a
more meaningful transformational leadership that would
express the strivings of the people and that would elevate
followers and pass leadership on to them.
Although Burns (1978) found some rare examples of such
elevated, transformational leadership in American history, he
remained deeply skeptical of the ability of the American
political system to engender true transformational leadership.
Challenging the revered system of checks and balances, Burns
(1978) described this base of democracy as transactional in
spirit and claimed that it does not lead to a genuine leader-
follower interface and, hence, undermines American leadership.
Burns (1978) has argued that transforming leaders serve
as the mouthpiece of the masses and elevate the masses to a
higher level of consciousness, so that, finally, they can yield
leadership to the masses themselves. This philosophy is
grounded in the Marxist tradition, claiming that the task
of the revolutionary vanguard is to raise self-consciousness of
the proletariat and eventually step aside as new proletarian
leaders emerge from the midst of the nation.
In his second book (2003), however, Burns has overhauled
his previous understanding of transforming leadership. While
in the past he defined transformational leadership as an ele-
vating type of interaction between leaders and followers that
can only be hampered by the institutional framework
imposing certain constraints on such leader-follower inter-
face, he now asserts that one cannot separate the exercise
of transforming leadership from the institutions and values of
democracy. Burns (2003) has acknowledged that the mech-
anisms of checks and balances and mutual bargaining allow
articulating conflicts of interests and clashes of opinions via
a viable political process.
 Although Burns has considerably changed his approach
from his first book on leadership (1978) to his second (2003),
he has remained consistent in his understanding of leader-
ship as a creative, dialogical interaction between leaders
and followers in which both parties learn from each other and
grow so that followers may eventually assume a leadership
role. Burns (1978, 2003) has also remained adamant through-
out his work in rejecting a one-directional approach to lead-
ership as a simple exercise of leaders’ influence over followers.
Bass’ Conception of Transactional-
Transformational Leadership:
An Articulation
The transactional-transformational paradigm appears to be
closer to Downton’s (1973) work and more indebted to Bales
and Parsons’ (1953) and Etzioni’s (1965) previous studies of
dual leadership than to Burns’ (1978). Thus, the transac-
tional-transformational paradigm essentially endorses Down-
ton’s (1973) conception of transactional leadership as meting
out of punishments and rewards, Downton’s view of inspi-
rational leadership as invocation of symbolic meanings, and
Downton’s approach to charismatic leadership as based on an
idealized role model.
Bass’ (1985, 1998) contribution lies in operationalizing
the concepts of transformational and transactional leadership
in his studies of military training and in hypothesizing that
the transformational factors—idealized influence, inspira-
tional motivation, intellectual simulation, and individualized
consideration—are more effective in changing followers’
attitudes and predicting organizational performance (Bass,
Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003) than the transactional factors—
contingent management, management by exception, and pas-
sive (laissez-faire) management.
Curiously, some subsequent studies in the transactional-
transformational paradigm have discovered that factors
underlying transformational leadership “could not be distin-
guished empirically” and have conceptualized transformational
style and transactional style as the two main factors underly-
ing the phenomenon of leadership (Avolio, 1999, p. 442).
Scholars have also expressed doubt as to whether contingent
reward (transactional) leadership should be viewed as part of
transactional leadership or as an aspect of transformational
leadership (Avolio, 1999).
Although the transactional-transformational paradigm
has established with some certainty that transformational,
or cultural-evocative, leadership complements and increases
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls
the effectiveness of transactional (contingent reward) manage-
ment, it is not clear how these findings are related to Burns’
(1978) theory of transforming leadership. Burns (1978), of
course, has never inquired whether transactional leadership can
increase its effectiveness by utilizing some ingredients of trans-
forming leadership. The next section brings into focus the
essential, insurmountable differences between Burns’ (1978,
2003) and Bass’ (1985, 1998) philosophies of leadership.
A Comparison of Burns’ and Bass’
Theories of Leadership
Extending previous research (Yukl, 2006), I propose a new
framework for comparing leadership theories (presented in
Table 1) and subsequently apply it to the analysis of the
divergence between Burns’ (1978, 2003) and Bass’ (1985,
1998) conceptions. The framework comprises three essential
dimensions of leadership: The first dimension summarizes
the main causes of leadership and the second introduces the
purpose and methods of leader influence, the third charac-
terizes leadership theories in terms of their objectives and
aspirations.
Each dimension encompasses a number of categories.
Thus, the first dimension (causes of leadership) comprises the
cultural-organizational environment, leaders’ characteristics,
followers’ characteristics, and leader-follow interaction.
Although leadership theories typically highlight one of these
categories as dominant (Yukl, 2006), I propose that every
leadership theory contains implicit characterizations of all
four causes. For instance, leader-centered theories effectively
describe followers as passive and limit their role to serving as
respondents. The second dimension (purpose and methods of
influence) contains three categories: institutions, norms, and
ethics; sources of influence; and methods purity. The third
dimension (objectives and aspirations) also includes three
categories: approach, applicability, and contingency.
In turn, each category within the three dimensions of lead-
ership may encompass various aspects. Thus, the cultural-
organizational environment is typically characterized in terms
of stability and pace (Baum & Locke, 2002; Eisenhardt,
1989). Following previous research (Howell & Costley, 2006)
I have added to these familiar environmental characteristics
the dimensions of national and, by extension, organizational
cultures (Hofstede, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, &
Gupta, 2004; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2004). I have used the
typology proposed by House and associates (2004) as an
extension of Hofstede’s (2001) original model. In addition,
15
 Table 1. A Four-Dimensional Framework: The Dimensions, Categories, and Aspects of Leadership
Examined (Explicitly or Implicitly) in Leadership Theories

Dimensions of leadership Categories of leadership

First dimension/categories Main causes of leadership

a. Cultural–organizational environment Aspects

1. Stability: turbulent (crisis) vs. stable (status quo) environment.

2. Power distance between leaders and followers: high (hierarchical relationship) vs. low
(interactive and collaborative relationship).

3. Uncertainty avoidance: high (strong reliance on rules and regulations, intolerance of

mistakes) vs. low (weak reliance on rules and regulations, tolerance of mistakes).

4. Institutional collectivism: high (individual goals subordinated to organizational) vs. low

(individual goals are recognized and cherished).

5. In-group collectivism: high (unit loyalty as opposed to organizational loyalty is encour-

aged) vs. low (unit loyalty is not juxtaposed to organizational loyalty).

6. Assertiveness: high (assertive is a dominant value) vs. low (modesty is a dominant value).

7. Gender egalitarianism: high (both genders are equally important) vs. low (one gender is
deemed to be superior to the other).

8. Performance orientation: high (organizations focused on improving performance) vs. low

(organizations are focused on maintaining performance).

9. Future orientation: long-term vs. short term.

10. Succession method: outside successors are typically preferred vs. inside successors are
typically preferred.

b. Leader characteristics Aspects

1. Traits: optimism, self-confidence, self-awareness, authenticity, adaptability, skills and

expertise, self-concepts.

2. Temporal orientation: leaders adopting immediate (short-term) goals vs. leaders adopt-
ing remote (long-term) goals.

3. Consensual orientation: low (disparity of opinions accepted and encouraged) vs. high
(disparity of opinions is not accepted and discouraged, dissenters prosecuted).

4. Cognitive style: willing to learn vs. set on transferring ready-made knowledge.

5. Locus of control: high (leaders supervise followers every step of the way) vs. low (follow-
ers are allowed to try out on their own with little or no guidance).

c. Follower characteristics Aspects

1. Traits: optimism, self-confidence, self-awareness, adaptability, skills and expertise, self-concepts.

2. Absorptive capacity: high vs. low.

3. Learning orientation: high (willingness to learn) vs. low (unwillingness to learn).

4. Openness: high (open to new ideas and experiences) vs. low (closed to new ideas and
experiences).

5. Acceptance of rational arguments: high (appreciation of rational argumentation) vs. low

(dislike of rational argumentation).

(continued )

16 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls

 Table 1. (continued)

c. Follower characteristics Aspects

6. Susceptibility to emotional appeals: high (easily swayed by emotional appeals) vs. low
(resistant to emotional appeals).

7. Proclivity for group biases: high (difficult for outsiders to affect group members) vs. low
(outsiders can affect group members).

8. Interactivity: high (willing to interact with leaders) vs. low (unwilling to interact with
leaders).

d. Leader-follower interface Aspects

1. Incidence: present vs. absent.

2. Importance: substantial vs. inconsequential.

3. Direction: two-way and multidirectional (from different groups of followers toward lead-
ership, and toward each other; and from leadership toward different groups of followers)
vs. unidirectional (from leader to follower but not vice versa).

Second dimension/categories Influence: Purpose, stances, and methods

a. Institutions, norms, ethics Aspects

1. Stewardship orientation: high (leaders who want to serve their organizations) vs. low
(leaders who put themselves above organizations).

2. Political stance: acceptance of institutional frameworks and willingness to work within

their boundaries: high (leaders agree to act within the existing institutional framework)
vs. low (leaders disagree to acting within the existing institutional framework).

3. Ethical objectives: high (ethical leaders) vs. low (unethical or nonethical leaders).

b. Sources of influence Aspects

1. Basis: collaboration-based (Socratic) vs. persuasion-based (sophistic), personal

appeal–based (charismatic) vs. authority- and power-based (hierarchical and dictatorial)
methods of influence.

2. Tools: logical arguments vs. emotional appeals (symbols and affiliations); evocation of
self-interest vs. empathy; stimulation of intellectual curiosity vs. mutual quest for shared
meanings; individual consideration vs. creative partnership.

c. Method purity Aspects

Single method vs. a combination of methods.

Third dimension/categories Objectives and aspirations

a. Approach Aspects

Descriptive vs. prescriptive.

b. Applicability Aspects

Universalistic (the claim that a theory applies to all cultures and organizations) vs. culture-
and organization-bound (the claim that a theory applies to particular cultural and organiza-
tional types).

c. Contingency Aspects

Direct effect vs. contingent and moderated effect

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls 17

I have incorporated succession as a cultural-organizational
aspect particularly relevant to leadership studies.
The category of leaders’ characteristics contains the
following aspects: traits, temporal orientation, consensual
orientation, cognitive style, and locus of control. The topic of
leaders’ traits has been extensively researched in leadership
studies (Yukl, 2006; Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader, 2004). Tem-
poral orientation has primarily been investigated in cultural
studies (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004) but is currently
being discussed as relevant to leadership research (Fu et al.,
2004). Burns (1978) was, perhaps, the first to examine lead-
ers’ consensual orientation, that is, leaders’ positive or nega-
tive attitude toward dissent and/or tolerance for views
different from their own. Leader cognitive style has attracted
much attention in the area of educational psychology as well
as leadership (Armstrong, Allinson, & Hayes, 2004; Graff,
2005). Finally, locus of control, leaders’ belief in their ability
to control the environment, has been examined in numer-
ous studies (Chen & Wang, 2007; Rotter, 1966).
The category of followers’ characteristics is becoming
increasingly important in leadership research (de Vries, Roe,
& Taillieu, 2002; Ehrhart & Klein, 2001; Yukl, 2006). Yukl
(2006) has isolated such followers’ characteristics as confi-
dence and optimism, skills and expertise, attributions about
the leader, trust in the leader, task commitment and effort,
and satisfaction with job and leader (p. 12). In addition to
these qualities and attitudes that can be regarded as followers’
traits, I have included some cognitive characteristics, such as
absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Jansen, Van
den Bosch, & Volberda, 2005), learning orientation (Niiya,
Crocker, & Bartmess, 2004), openness, acceptance of rational
arguments, susceptibility to emotional appeals (Yukl, 2006),
and proclivity for group bias (Scheepers, Spears, & Doosje,
2006).
Three aspects characterize the fourth category of leader-
follower interaction: incidence (Does a leadership theory con-
sider leader-follower interaction?), importance (Does a theory
describe leader-follower interaction as important?), and
direction (Does a theory view leader-follower interaction as
unidirectional or multidirectional?). While leader-follower
interaction has been partly examined within the leader-member
exchange (LMX) theories, the more emphasis in such studies
has been on the quality of a leader-follower relationship than
on collaboration (Boies & Howell, 2006).
The second dimension of leadership relates to leaders’
influence over followers. Its first category, institutions, norms,
18 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls
ethics, describes leaders’ willingness to work within the existing
institutions of society (or conversely, work outside their bound-
aries) and, respectively, endorse certain cultural-institutional
norms and ethics. The first category encompasses such aspects
as stewardship orientation (Davis, Schoorman, & Donaldson,
1997), political stance, and ethical guidelines (Kanungo &
Mendonca, 1996). The second category of methods of influence
encompasses two aspects: basis (interaction-based versus
influence-, authority-, and power-based) and tools of influence,
such as intellectual stimulation (logic versus emotions). Tactics
of leader influence have been examined in numerous leadership
theories (Yukl, 2006). The last category of the second dimension,
purity of methods, differentiates between leadership theories that
use a single method of influence and leadership theories that employ
a combination of methods, for instance, making rational argu-
ments, appealing to followers’ self-interest, and invoking empathy
and compassion (Yukl et al., 2005).
The third dimension summarizes leaders’ objectives and
aspirations. It is composed of three categories: approach,
applicability, and contingency. The first category allows clas-
sification of a leadership theory as descriptive or prescriptive
(Yukl, 2006). The second category draws attention to the way
a leadership theory defines its area of applicability or gener-
alizability. Thus, some leadership theories view themselves as
universalistic, that is, equally applicable to any area of human
interaction. Conversely, others claim to be operative in a cer-
tain specific area (for instance, of political leadership). The
third category shows whether a leadership theory views the
effects it studies as moderated by other intervening factors
(for instance, by situational variables).
A detailed comparison of Burns’ (1978) and Bass’ (1985)
theories of leadership along the three proposed dimensions
is contained in Table 2. Summarizing the results of this anal-
ysis, it appears that Burns’ (1978, 2003) and Bass’ (1985,
1998) approaches to leadership grow from different organi-
zational contexts. The cultural-organizational environment
implicit in Burns’ (1978, 2003) studies encompasses social
movements, political parties, nonprofit organizations, and
government. In contrast, Bass’ (1985, 1998) implicit orga-
nizational context is that of military training, the backdrop of
Bass’ principal studies (1996, 1998). Not surprisingly, these
two implicit organizational environments exhibit significant
differences.
Thus, high power distance separates Bass’ (1985, 1998)
transformational leaders (military commanders) from
followers (cadets); the assumed organizational culture is high
 Table 2. Discrepancies Between Burns’ (1978, 2003) and Bass’s (1985, 1998) Approaches in Terms
of Their Interpretation of the 12 Factors Affecting Leadership

Dimensions/categories
of leadership Burns (1978, 2003) Bass (1985, 1998)

First dimension Main causes of leadership

a. Cultural–organizational
environment Aspects Aspects

1. Stability 1. Inconsequential: critical situations spur 1. Somewhat important: transformational

transforming leadership, but such situations leadership is more applicable to critical situations,
(world hunger) are always present. but it can be used under any circumstances.

2. Power distance 2. Low: the relationship is collaborative 2. High: leaders dominate followers, as in the military.
and not hierarchical.

3. Uncertainty avoidance 3. Low: leaders are turned on to followers’ 3. High: leaders seek to rid followers’ performance
feelings and forgive mistakes and failures. of errors and failures.

4. Institutional collectivism 4. Low (individual goals are recognized 4. High (individual goals are subordinated
and cherished). to organizational).

5. In-group collectivism 5. Low (unit loyalty is not juxtaposed to 5. High (unit loyalty as opposed to organizational
organizational loyalty). loyalty is encouraged).

6. Assertiveness 6. Low (modesty and not assertiveness 6. High (assertiveness and not modesty is a
is a dominant value). dominant value).

7. Gender egalitarianism 7. High (both genders are equally important). 7. High (both genders are equally important).

8. Performance 8. Low: performance orientation is an upshot 8. High (organizations are focused on improving
orientation of leader-follower interaction. follower performance).

9. Future orientation 9. Both long-term and short term. 9. More short-term than long-term.

10. Succession method 10. Inside successors are preferred. 10. Outside successors are preferred.

b. Leader characteristics Aspects Aspects

1. Traits 1. Receptivity, collaboration, self-awareness, 1. Optimism, self-confidence, and adaptability.

and authenticity.

2. Temporal orientation 2. Remote (long-term) more than immediate 2. Immediate (short-term) goals more than
(short-term) goals. remote (long-term) goals.

3. Consensual orientation 3. Low (disparity of opinions accepted 3. High (disparity of opinions is not accepted
and encouraged). and is discouraged).

4. Cognitive style 4. Willing to learn from followers and 4. Set on transferring ready-made knowledge.
change opinions.

5. Control 5. Low (followers are allowed to try out on 5. High (leaders supervise followers every
their own with little or no guidance). step of the way).

c. Follower characteristics Aspects Aspects

1. Creative capacity 1. High: followers generate new ideas. 1. Low: followers are not creative.

2. Absorptive capacity 2. High: followers actively interact with leaders. 2. High: followers easily absorb leaders’ messages.

3. Learning orientation 3. High: followers are avid learners. 3. High: followers are avid learners.

(continued)

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls 19

 Table 2. (continued )

c. Follower characteristics Aspects Aspects

4. Intellectual openness 4. High: followers are open to new ideas 4. Low: it takes intensive manipulation to make
and experiences. followers willing to learn.

5. Acceptance of rational 5. High (followers appreciate rational 5. Low (followers are not receptive to rational
arguments argumentation). argumentation).

6. Susceptibility to 6. Low (followers are resistant to purely 6. High (followers are easily swayed by emotional
emotional influence emotional appeals). appeals).

7. Group bias 7. Low: followers are open to other 7. High (difficult for outsiders to affect group
groups’ agendas. members).

8. Interactivity 8. High (followers are willing to interact 8. Low (followers prefer to learn from leaders).
with leaders).

d. Leader-follower
interaction Aspects Aspects

1. Presence 1. Always present. 1. Rarely present.

2. Importance 2. Essential inconsequential. 2. Peripheral.

3. Direction 3. Two-way and multidirectional (from different 3. Unidirectional (from leader to follower but not
groups of followers toward leadership, and vice versa).
toward each other; and from leadership
toward different groups of followers).

Second dimension Influence: Purpose and methods Influence: Purpose and methods

a. Institutions, norms,
ethics Aspects Aspects

1. Acceptance of 1. Low (Burns, 1978), high (Burns, 2003): 1. High: leaders should act from within democratic
institutional framework leaders should act from within democratic (and other appropriate) institutions.
and other appropriate institutions.

2. Ethical guidance 2. High: transforming leaders are always elevating. 2. Low (Bass, 1985), high (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999).

3. Stewardship 3. High (leaders want to serve their 3. Stewardship: high (leaders want to serve their
organizations and the world community). organizations).

b. Methods used by leaders

to influence followers Aspects Aspects

1. Basis Collaboration-based (Socratic) mutual quest Personal influence–based (charismatic), logic and
for shared meanings; creative partnership. persuasion-based (sophistic), and authority-based
(hierarchical).

2. Tools Intellectual stimulation.

Individual consideration.

c. Method purity Multiple methods Multiple methods

Third dimension:
Objectives and aspirations Aspects Aspects

a. Approach Prescriptive Prescriptive

b. Applicability Culture- and organization-bound Claims to be universal but, in fact, is limited to

certain cultural-organizational contexts.

c. Contingency Acknowledges the importance of Denies the importance of contingent factors.

contingent factors

20 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls

on uncertainty avoidance (meticulously following rules and
regulations); both institutional and in-group collectivism are
high (military units profess extreme loyalty to the overall,
overriding objective of national defense and security, and yet
strong group pride characterizes each particular branch of the
armed forces and, indeed, every military unit). In addition,
the assumed environment is high on assertiveness and falls
short of genuine gender egalitarianism (although it is gradu-
ally moving in that direction). Finally, the performance ori-
entation is also extremely high.
In contrast, a low power distance separates Burns’ (1978,
2003) leaders and followers; that is why leaders may often
engage in transactional relationships with powerful follow-
ers, for instance, members of Congress. Moreover, Burns’
transformational leaders exhibit a low level of uncertainty
avoidance. Both institutional and in-group collectivism are
lower than in the military. Although party discipline prevails,
leaders may break away from the party line and endorse an in-
dividual agenda. Assertiveness is lower than in the military
because political leaders are expected to demonstrate flexi-
bility and readiness to change their approach with the changes
in the environment. Finally, performance orientation is also
less strong than in military training organizations.
Additionally, Burns (1978, 2003) and Bass (1985, 1998)
significantly differ in their characterizations of leaders. Thus,
Burns’ (1978, 2003) transforming leaders display authentic-
ity, self-awareness, receptivity to followers’ needs and wants,
and a collaborative orientation. In contrast, Bass’ transfor-
mational leaders (1985, 1998) exhibit optimism, extreme
self-confidence, and adaptability—the qualities that are
especially valued in the military. Even more importantly, Burns’
(1978, 2003) leaders are low on consensual orientation. They
encourage dissent as a source of creativity. Bass’ (1985, 1998)
leaders are high on consensual orientation and seek unanimity.
Burns’ (1978, 2003) leaders are also different from Bass’
(1985, 1998) in their cognitive style. The former seek to learn
from followers (Burns’ political leaders derive their inspiration
from the masses and often dramatically change their entire
approach as a result of their influence). The latter are set on
transferring ready-made knowledge that does not need to be
modified. Finally, Burns’ (1978, 2003) leaders are less con-
trolling than Bass’ (1985, 1998) leaders: transforming leaders
are willing to allow more leeway to followers than transfor-
mational leaders.
Burns (1978, 2003) and Bass (1985, 1998) also differ in
their suppositions regarding followers’ characteristics. Burns
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls
(1978, 2003) assumes active and creative followers who go
forward with their own agendas, which change the entire
mode of interaction between leaders and followers. Such fol-
lowers appreciate rational arguments but may loathe strong
emotional appeals to collective identity, which can appear
manipulative to them. Conversely, Bass’ (1985, 1998) fol-
lowers are easily swayed by emotional appeals to both insti-
tutional and in-group collectivism.
Finally, Burns’ (1978, 2003) theory of leadership is focused
on leader-follower interaction. Such interaction is ever present
and is defined as the essence of collective leadership. Further-
more, Burns views leader-follower interaction as multidirec-
tional (emanating from different groups of followers to leaders
and to each other, as well as emanating from leaders to dif-
ferent groups of followers). Conversely, in Bass’ studies (1985,
1998) leader-follower interaction is described as unidirectional:
leaders teach followers how to become military commanders.
There are also some major differences between Burns’
(1978, 2003) and Bass’ (1985, 1998) conceptions regarding
the purpose and methods of leader influence (the second di-
mension of leadership). Burns (2003) has significantly
changed his views regarding transforming leaders’ political
stance in his second book, in which he has acknowledged
that transforming leaders should act within the boundaries
of democratic institutions and explicitly endorse democratic
values. Similarly, Bass (1998) has significantly changed his
views from those of his first book on transformational lead-
ership (1985). While initially Bass (1985) believed that leaders
using unethical but effective methods may be viewed as trans-
formational, he later emphasized the importance of leaders’
ethical objectives. Thus, Burns (1978, 2003) and Bass (1985,
1998) have moved closer to each other as the former has re-
canted the original criticism of the system of checks and bal-
ances, and the latter has recanted the emphasis on leader
effectiveness rather than ethics.
Nevertheless, Burns’ (1978, 2003) transforming leaders
still differ from Bass’ (1985, 1998) transformational leaders in
terms of their stances regarding the political-institutional and
normative-ethical aspects of leadership. Thus, Burns (1978,
2003) has emphasized leaders’ stewardship orientation to-
ward their organizations, leaders’ feelings of indebtedness to
society at large and the world community, and leaders’ alle-
giance to democratic institutions and values (Burns, 2003).
Conversely, Bass (1985, 1998) has underscored leaders’ in-
strumentalist (rather than stewardship) orientation in terms
of ways of improving followers’ performance and has not
21
discussed leaders’ and followers’ aspirations and commitments
beyond their direct responsibilities.
There are also some important discrepancies in the ways
Burns (1978, 2003) and Bass (1985, 1998) have characterized
the sources of leader influence. According to Burns (1978,
2003), transforming leaders and followers jointly discover
some new realities through a collaborative cognitive process
that can be described as Socratic (one in which leaders mod-
erate discussions rather than procure ready-made answers or
lead followers to preconceived conclusions). Conversely, Bass
(1985, 1995) has rather emphasized personal influence-based
(charismatic) and logic- and persuasion-based (sophistic)
methods of indoctrinating the follower.
Bass’ (1985, 1998) approach is also more instrumental than
Burns’ (1978, 2003) with regard to influence tactics. Thus,
Bass (1985, 1998) has emphasized intellectual stimulation and
individual consideration, that is, ways of making passive fol-
lowers more involved and active, whereas Burns (1978, 2003)
has proposed a creative partnership between leaders and fol-
lowers as equals engaged in a mutual quest for resolving the
most urgent problems facing their entire community. Burns
(1978, 2003) and Bass (1985, 1998), however, have both en-
dorsed using multiple methods or a combination of different
methods in order to raise followers’ needs and wants.
Finally, Burns (1978, 2003) and Bass (1985, 1998) concur
in presenting their theories as both descriptive (defining trans-
actional and transforming/transformational styles of leader-
ship) and prescriptive (presenting transforming and
transformational leadership as superior to transactional lead-
ership and, therefore, as a model for imitation). Yet Burns
(1978, 2003) and Bass (1985, 1998) significantly differ in
terms of their universalistic ambitions and contingency as-
sumptions. Burns (1978, 2003) has emphasized that leader-
ship is context-based, and, hence, that no model of leadership
can be equally applicable to all cultures and organizations,
and underscored the importance of both traits and situations
as contingent factors. Conversely, Bass (1997) has argued that
the transactional-transformational paradigm is universally ap-
plicable and, thus, has no boundary conditions. However, re-
cent studies (Hoffman & Frost, 2006) have elaborated on a
number of contingent factors that moderate the effect of
transformational leadership.
Discussion and Conclusions
Similarly to the proponents of the transactional-transforma-
tional paradigm (Avolio, 2005; Bass, 1985, 1997), critics of
transformational leadership (Keeley, 1995; McKendall, 1993;
22 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls
Snyder, 1987; Stevens, D’Intino, & Victor, 1995; White &
Wooten, 1986) have approached Bass’ (1985, 1998) con-
ception of leadership as a logical extension of Burns’ (1978)
original ideas. The critics have equally rejected Burns’ (1978)
and Bass’ (1985, 1998) philosophies as manipulative in na-
ture (McKendall, 1993; Snyder, 1987; White & Wooten,
1986), seeking to transform followers’ ideas and sensibilities
in the direction that would benefit leaders immeasurably
more than followers themselves (Stevens et al., 1995). Fur-
thermore, some opponents (Keeley, 1995) viewed Burns’
(1978) criticism of the American democratic institutions as
the source of manipulative strategies inherent in the theory of
transformational leadership.
More sympathetic critics, such as Yukl (1999, 2006), have
argued that the theory of transformational leadership (Burns,
1978; Bass, 1985) and the related theory of charismatic lead-
ership (Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1998; Shamir, House, &
Arthur, 1993) have appropriately emphasized followers’ emo-
tional reactions to leaders’ messages, the symbolic aspects of
leader behavior, and the “management of meaning” (Yukl,
2006, p. 272), which have not been sufficiently recognized in
previous research. However, Yukl (1999, 2006) has also ar-
gued that transformational-charismatic theories have
remained leader-centered and overstate the “universal leader
attributes that are relevant for all situations” (2006, p. 273),
while failing to explain how leaders influence followers, and
which situational variables, such as followers’ preferences
(Ehrhart & Klein, 2001) and organizational types, may de-
termine whether transformational leadership is appropriate.
While generally in agreement with Yukl’s (1999, 2006) anal-
ysis of the positive and negative aspects of transformational-
charismatic theories, I propose that the differences between
Burns’ (1978, 2003) and Bass’ (1985, 1998) conceptions are so
substantial that they should not be regarded as one theory. Yukl
(2006) has pointed out that the main difference between Burns
(1978) and Bass (1985) lies in the fact that the former is more
concerned “with the moral elevation of followers or social re-
form” (2006, p. 250) whereas the latter is focused on the “at-
tainment of pragmatic task objectives” (2006, p. 250).
Although this distinction holds, there are a number of other
important discrepancies between Burns’ (1978, 2003) and Bass’
(1985, 1998) approaches to leadership.
Burns’ (1978) conception of transforming leadership
was unique in its critique of consensus building and its
understanding of the leader-follower collaboration as the
defining aspect of leadership. Burns (1978, 2003) was also
adamant in his insistence that transforming leadership is
inherently elevating and broad-focused because true leaders
aspire to resolve the most urgent problems facing not just their
own parties and organizations, but also the world community.
Conversely, Bass (1985, 1995) has deemphasized the col-
lective aspect of leadership and the importance of a mutually
enriching interaction between leaders and followers leading to
followers’ elevation to leadership roles. Instead, Bass (1985,
1995) has focused on exercising turnaround leadership—
inducing followers to enhance their performance beyond their
own expectations.
Essentially, Bass (1985, 1995) has advanced the theory of
dual leadership, which stresses the importance of combining
the instrumental and expressive (Etzioni, 1965) and transac-
tional and charismatic leadership styles (Downton, 1973).
Bass and his followers have examined how to make transac-
tional leadership more effective by imbuing it with some
transformational ingredients—providing more individual-
ized consideration, intellectual stimulation, and emotional
excitement to followers. The inherent drawback of this
approach is that its conclusions are rather trivial: inoculating
transactional style with elements of charismatic and inspira-
tional styles is likely to make it more effective when com-
pared to purely transactional leadership.
The purpose of this article, however, is not to diminish the
importance of Bass’ (1985, 1998) approach, but rather to es-
tablish its boundary conditions. Rooted in studies of military
training, the transactional-transformational paradigm (Avolio,
1999, 2005) has succeeded in showing the importance of such
elements of leader impact upon followers as idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual simulation, and individ-
ualized consideration. However, this theory appears to be most
applicable to situations in which leaders transfer ready-made
knowledge to passive followers in organizations with high power
distance, high uncertainty avoidance, and a strong performance
orientation. Conversely, Burns’ (1978, 2003) approach
emphasizing leader-follower collaboration, a Socratic method
of knowledge generation, mutual quest for shared meanings,
and stewardship orientation appears to be more relevant for po-
litical leadership and innovative management of creative or-
ganizations endorsing corporate social responsibility.
Practical Implications
Leadership theories, such as the transactional-transformational
paradigm (Avolio, 1999, 2005; Bass, 1997), are often
prescriptive and universalistic. However, leaders need to be
aware of their merits and shortcomings and the specific
organizational contexts in which they may be relevant.
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls
An indiscriminate adoption of popular leadership theories
may do more harm than good if they do not fit a specific cul-
tural-organizational profile and leader’s objectives. Thus, there
is growing evidence that transformational leadership may not
address the specific leadership needs in certain areas, for
instance, in public service organizations (Currie & Lockett,
2007), and even in the area of corporate governance, where
its influence has been quite noticeable (Waldman, Siegel, &
Javidan, 2006).
Applying a four-dimensional framework proposed in this
article, leaders can analyze whether their organizations would
benefit more from employing Burns’ (1978, 2003) conception
of transforming leadership or Bass’ (1985, 1998) theory of
transformational leadership or, in fact, an entirely different ap-
proach to leadership. Thus, the transactional-transformational
paradigm (Bass, 1997; Avolio, 2005) may not be applicable to
creative organizations in which followers expect leaders
to engage in a Socratic quest for knowledge through creative
collaboration rather than rely on idealized influence,
give pep talks alluding to collective identity, and mete out
calculated dosages of intellectual stimulation and individual
consideration.
By the same token, Burns’ (1978, 2003) transforming lead-
ership may not be appropriate in sales organizations with
army-like discipline in which the entire emphasis is on
enhancing performance through constant stimulation of em-
ployees to follow the most successful producers. Ultimately,
leadership strategy should not be imported from the existing
leadership theories, but rather developed individually so that
it can better fit a particular organizational culture.
References
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (2000). Cross-national differences in
cognitive style: Implications for management. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 11(1), 161–170.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context
and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leader-
ship theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The
Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261–295.
Armstrong, S. J., Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (2004). The effects
of cognitive style on research supervision: A study of student-
supervisor dyads in management education. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 3(1), 41–63.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J. (2005). Leadership development in balance: Made/born.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership
development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leader-
ship. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., &
May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by
which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors.
Leadership Quarterly, 15(6): 801–823.
Bales, R. (1953). Equilibrium problem in small groups. In
T. Parsons, F. Bales, & E. Shils (Eds.), Working papers in the theory
of action (pp. 111–161). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Bass, B. (1973). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior.
Portsmouth, NH: Greenwood.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance: Beyond expectations.
New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. (1995). Theory of transformational leadership redux.
Leadership Quarterly, 6(4), 463–478.
Bass, B. A. (1996). New paradigm for leadership: An inquiry into
transformational leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Bass, B. (1997, February). Does the transactional-transformational
leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national bound-
aries? American Psychologist, pp. 130–139.
Bass, B. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military
and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1992). Developing transformational leadership:
1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14, 21–37.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership: A
response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.),
Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49–76).
San Diego: Academic Press.
Bass, B., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999), “Ethics, character, and authentic
transformational leadership behavior,” Leadership Quarterly, 10(2),
181–217.
Bass, B., Avolio, B., Jung, D., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit
performance by assessing transformational and transactional lead-
ership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207–218.
Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepre-
neurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587–598.
Boies, K., & Howell, J. (2006). Leader-member exchange in teams:
An examination of the interaction between relationship differenti-
ation and mean LMX in explaining team-level outcomes. Leadership
Quarterly, 17(3), 246–257.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit of
happiness. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
24 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls
Burns, J. M. (2006). Running alone: Presidential leadership—JFK to
Bush II. New York: Basic Books.
Chen, J., & Wang, L. (2007). Locus of control and the three
components of commitment to change. Personality & Individual
Differences, 42(3), 503–512.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A
new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory
of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of
Management Review, 12, 637–647.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1998). Charismatic leadership in
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Currie, G., & Lockett, A. (2007). A critique of transformational
leadership: Moral, professional and contingent dimensions of lead-
ership within public service organizations. Human Relations, 60(2),
341–370.
Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F. D. and Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward
a stewardship theory of management, Academy of Management
Review, 22, 20–47.
De Vries, R. E., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. C. B. (2002). Need for
leadership as a moderator of the relationships between leadership
and individual outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 121–137.
Downton, J. (1973). Rebel leadership. New York: Free Press.
Ehrhart, M. G, & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers’ prefer-
ences for charismatic leadership: The influence of follower values
and personality. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(2): 153–179.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-
velocity environments. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(3),
543–576.
Etzioni, A. (1965). Dual leadership in complex organizations.
American Sociological Review, 30, 680–698.
Fu, P. P., Kennedy, J., Tata, J., Yukl, G., Bond, M. H., Srinivas, E.,
Howell, J. P., Prieto, L., Koopman, P., Boonstra, J. J., Pasa, S.,
Lacassagne, M.-F., Higashide, H., & Cheosakul, A. (2004). The
impact of societal cultural values and individual social beliefs on
the perceived effectiveness of managerial influence strategies: A
meso approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(4),
284–306.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., Douglas, R., May, D. R., &
Walumbwa, F. (2005) “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model
of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly,
16(3), 343–372.
Graff, M. (2005). Differences in concept mapping, hypertext
architecture, and the analyst–intuition dimension of cognitive style.
Educational Psychology, 25(4), 409–422.
Hoffman, B. J., & Frost, B. C. (2006). Multiple intelligences of
transformational leaders: An empirical examination. International
Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 37–51.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values,
behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2004). Cultures and organizations:
Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
House, R. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In
J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge
(pp. 189–207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, P. W., & Dorfman, V., & Gupta, V.
(2004). Leadership, Culture, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study
of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic
leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management
Executive, 6(2), 43–54.
Howell, J. P., & Costley, D. L. (2001). Understanding behaviors for
effective leadership. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Jansen, J. P. J., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005).
Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do
organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal,
48(6), 999–1015.
Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analysis of their relative validity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768.
Kanungo, R. N., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions in
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Keeley, M. (1995). The trouble with transformational leadership:
Toward a federalist ethic for organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly,
5, 67–95.
McKendall, M. (1993). The tyranny of change: Organizational
development revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 93–104.
Niiya, Y., Crocker, J., & Bartmess, E. (2004). From vulnerability to
resilience: Learning orientations buffer contingent self-esteem from
failure. Psychological Science, 15(12), 801–815.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus
external locus of control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs,
80(1), 1–28.
Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2007) Transformational and charis-
matic leadership: Assessing the convergent, divergent and crite-
rion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. Leadership Quarterly, 18,
121–133.
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 1 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls
Sashkin, M. (1988), “The visionary leader,” in Conger, J.A.,
Kanungo, R.N. (Eds.), Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in
Organizational Effectiveness, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 122–160.
Scheepers, D., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2006). Diversity in in-
group bias: Structural factors, situational features, and social func-
tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6), 944–960.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational
effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory.
Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594.
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances, private realities: The psychol-
ogy of self-monitoring. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Stevens, C. U., D’Intino, R. S., & Victor, B. (1995). The moral
quandary of transformational leadership: Change for whom?
Research in Organizational Change and Development, 8, 123–143.
Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components
of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsi-
bility. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1703–1725.
White, L. P., & Wooten, K. C. (1986). Professional ethics and prac-
tice in organizational development: A systematic analysis of issues,
alternatives, and approaches. New York: Praeger.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transfor-
mational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly,
10(2), 285–305.
Yukl, G., Chavez, C., & Seifert, C. F. (2005). Assessing the construct
validity and utility of two new influence tactics. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 26(6), 705–725.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and
attributes. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),
The nature of leadership (pp. 101–124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dr. Khanin is a full-time faculty member in the Department of
Management at Cal State, Fullerton. He has worked as a
financial adviser at such companies as American Express
and Morgan Stanley. His research explores venture capital,
corporate governance, leadership styles, and family firms.
Two articles he coauthored have been recently accepted by the
Academy of Management Journal and Organization Science.
He holds a bachelor’s degree from the Moscow State University,
an MBA from the University of Miami, and a Ph.D. from
the University of Maryland. Dmitry can be reached at
dkhanin@fullerton.edu.
25