Central conceptual issues in transformational
leadership research
Keywords
Transformational leadership,
Research,
Organizational innovation,
Change management, Employees
Abstract
Transformational leadership is one
of the most recent
conceptualizations of leadership
concepts. It has been specified as
an important mechanism of
introducing organizational change.
Transformational leadership has
received substantial research
attention over the last two decades.
As a result, transformational
leadership research has created
considerable knowledge about the
transformational leadership
phenomenon. It, however, has also
generated several conceptual
issues and addressing these issues
is necessary for advancing
transformational leadership
research. Highlights six important
conceptual issues that the research
has generated. Also outlines the
significance of each of these six
issues and then provides a critical
commentary based on these issues.
In pointing out research
implications, outlines the required
research for addressing these
issues and provides an outline of
how research for addressing them
can be approached. Finally,
indicates some of the implications
of this paper for practice.
Received: July 2002
Revised: March 2003
Accepted: May 2003
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/7 [2003] 397-406
# MCB UP Limited
[ISSN 0143-7739]
[DOI 10.1108/01437730310498596]
Badrinarayan S. Pawar
Indian Institute of Management (Ahmedabad), Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, India
Transformational leadership is one of the
most recent approaches to conceptualizing
leadership and has drawn considerable
attention of researchers. This
conceptualization has been useful not only in
studying the process of institutional or
organizational change (Burns, 1978; Tichy
and Devanna, 1986) but also in explaining the
occurrence of employee level positive
outcomes such as employee effort and
satisfaction (Bass, 1985, 1998).
Although transformational leadership
research has enhanced our ability to
understand organizational change process as
well as explain employee level outcomes, it
has also given rise to several conceptual
issues. It is necessary to acknowledge and
address these issues because, as researchers
have noted (Bass, 1999; Conger, 1999),
transformational leadership research is at a
stage where its conceptual examination is
important.
Given this need for and importance of
conceptual research in the area of
transformational leadership, I identify
central conceptual issues associated with
the transformational leadership research.
Several researchers have undertaken
conceptual examination of various
perspectives in the new leadership
(Beyer, 1999; Bryman, 1992; Conger, 1999;
Hunt, 1999; Vandenberghe, 1999; Yukl,
1999a, b) and pointed out the conceptual
inadequacies associated with different
perspectives. The conceptual examination
in the present paper differs from the
earlier conceptual examinations in
two ways.
First, in the present paper I specifically
focus on the transformational leadership
concept rather than on the entire new
leadership perspective. Thus, I exclude from
this examination other conceptualizations
such as charismatic leadership that are
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
included in the new leadership perspective.
This exclusive focus on transformational
leadership concept is consistent with the
observation of Conger (1999, p. 149) that it has
evolved to be the central perspective in the
field. Second, I seek to go beyond the issues
and the extent of conceptual analysis covered
in the earlier conceptual examinations of the
transformational leadership concept
(Vandenberghe, 1999; Yukl, 1999a, b).
This paper is organized as follows.
I first outline six important conceptual
issues that have arisen from the
transformational leadership research.
There I also discuss the significance of
these issues. Next, I outline a brief critical
commentary based on these issues
identified. Then I point out research
implications of this paper by outlining:
1 research required for addressing these
issues;
2 an approach for addressing these issues;
and
3 research required to identify additional
issues.
Finally, I outline some of the implications of
this paper for transformational leadership
practice.
Central conceptual issues in
transformational leadership
research
Several conceptual issues have emerged over
the last two decades of research in
transformational leadership. These issues
concern inadequate clarity about:
1 the applicability of the transformational
leadership in economic organizations;
2 the exact relationship between
transformational and transactional
leadership;
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
[ 397 ]
Badrinarayan S. Pawar
Central conceptual issues in
transformational leadership
research
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/7 [2003] 397-406
[ 398 ]
3 the distinction between transformational
and charismatic leadership;
4 the focus of transformational leadership
in attaining organizational change;
5 the relationship between organizational
context and transformational leadership;
and
6 types of transformational leadership
processes.
Each of these six conceptual issues and its
significance is outlined below.
Issue 1: Applicability of transformational
leadership in economic organizations
In the original work that proposed the
concept of transforming leadership, Burns'
(1978) focus was mainly on leadership at the
level of societies and movements. The goals
that societies seek to attain are likely to come
in diverse alternative sets and the means that
societies can adopt to reach them are likely to
be unclear, vague, or even unknown. These
aspects are clearly reflected in Burns' (1978)
work where he outlines situations such as
those associated with the US constitution
adoption process, the Russian revolution in
the period of Lenin, and the Chinese
revolution in the period of Mao.
The circumstances associated with the
above situations had created considerable
scope for someone to articulate a set of values
that can enable comparison of alternative
goals or ends and evaluation of means to be
used for attaining these ends. These
circumstances had created a need for the task
of articulation of values which was attained
through one of the transformational
leadership forms termed as intellectual
leadership in Burns' work (1978). This scope
for articulation of values to facilitate
comparison of alternative goal sets and
evaluation of means that is likely to be
present in social systems can be contrasted
with the typical situations in economic
organizations.
Economic organizations, termed hereafter
as organizations, are goal-oriented systems.
Though the goals sought by different
organizations could differ, these differences
can be circumscribed within a range that is
narrower than the applicable range of goals
for a social system. Moreover, the norms of
technical and economic rationality may
usually provide reasonably clear guidelines
for the choice of means for the attainment of
organizational goals (Thompson, 1967). This
difference between societies and economic
organizations in terms of the possible goal
range and availability of guidelines for the
selection of means to attain goals gets partly
reflected in the view of Blau and Scott (1963,
p. 14) that:
In contrast to communities or societies,
formal organizations are characterized by
explicit goals, an elaborate system of explicit
rules and regulations, and a formal status
structure with clearly marked lines of
communication and authority.
Thus, with a relatively limited range of
alternative goal sets and with the importance
of technical and economic rationality in
choosing means for goal attainment, in
economic organizations, the leadership is
likely to be expected to operate largely within
the bounds of technical and economic
rationality. Consistent with this, Katz and
Kahn (1967, p. 389) point out how the
influence of technological orientation could
constrain the occurrence of ideological
leadership in certain types of organizations.
Thus, the ideological leadership that
articulates values to facilitate choice of ends
and means at a societal level may not be
equally feasible or required in organizations
where technical rationality is a significant
influence.
Thus, the applicability of ideological
leadership that can emerge and operate at a
societal level may be constrained in
organizations. This may happen due to the
factors such as the presence of explicit goals,
adherence to technical and economic
rationality, or the nonresponsiveness of
organizational members to ideological
appeals.
Therefore, it is important to address the
issue as to what extent the basic conditions
that create the need for transformational
leadership in a society also exist in an
economic organization. This issue is
significant as systematic assessment of it will
help in determining the extent to which it is
appropriate to extend Burns' (1978)
conceptualization of transformational
leadership in social movements to the
organizational context of economic
organizations.
Issue 2: Relationship between
transformational and transactional
leadership
Though recently the transformational-
transactional two-factor conceptualization
has been questioned by Yukl (1999a), the
issue that is discussed in this section is not
whether such a two-factor conceptualization
is appropriate. Rather, the issue is what is
the conceptual relationship between these
two leadership forms. In Burns' (1978) work,
transformational leadership is viewed as
being distinct from transactional leadership.
This suggestion is based on the view that
Badrinarayan S. Pawar
Central conceptual issues in
transformational leadership
research
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/7 [2003] 397-406
transformational leaders raise followers to a
higher level of needs and aspirations
whereas transactional leaders identify the
existing needs and goals of their followers
and provide rewards for the fulfillment of
these needs and goals. Bass (1985, p. 22),
however, noted that:
Burns and I differ in a third way. He sees
transformational leadership as the opposite
end of a single continuum from transactional
leadership. Conceptually and empirically, we
find leaders will exhibit a variety of patterns
of transformational and transactional
leadership.
This statement of Bass (1985) outlines the
existence of two views. One view suggested to
be reflected in Burns' (1978) work which
regards transformational and transactional
leadership as two ends of a continuum and
another view put forth in Bass (1985) which
regards transformational and transactional
leaderships as two distinct processes but
acknowledges the possibility of varying
relationships between them. In contrast to
these two views, another view (Hollander,
1993) suggests that transformational
leadership can be regarded as merely an
extension of transactional leadership.
Thus, different views suggest different
forms of relationship between
transformational leadership and
transactional leadership. Findings from
empirical research, however, suggest that
transformational and transactional
leadership are two distinct dimensions
(Bass, 1998). The empirical findings
suggesting that these two leadership forms
are two distinct dimensions, by themselves,
are consistent with the position reflected in
Burns' (1978) work that transformational
and transactional leadership forms are
distinct from each other. However, some of
the findings (Waldman et al., 1990) also
indicate that these two dimensions are
highly correlated, suggesting that
transactional and transformational
processes are related and occur together. In
addition, there are findings suggesting that
transformational leadership subsumes the
effect of transactional leadership on the
positive work outcomes (Waldman et al.,
1990) and its effect on positive work
outcomes is stronger than that of
transactional leadership (Waldman et al.,
1990). These findings, in association with the
findings that transactional and
transformational leadership dimensions are
highly correlated, suggest that
transformational leadership is an extension
of transactional leadership.
Thus, theoretical works suggest differing
views about the relationship between
transformational and transactional
leadership processes. Empirical findings
seem to be consistent with the view that
suggests that transformational and
transactional leadership forms are two
distinct leadership forms and also with the
view that suggests that they are related to
each other. Empirical findings also do not
contradict the view that transformational
leadership is a stronger form and an
extension of transactional leadership.
However, to the extent that the findings on
the relationship between transactional and
transformational leadership come from
studies that have used a particular
operationalization of these concepts, and to
the extent that this operationalization's
appropriateness is being questioned even
currently (Yukl, 1999a), these empirical
findings may not conclusively refute the
position that these two leadership forms are
distinct and unrelated or even opposite to
each other. Also, the research has not
provided a systematic conceptual
explanation, beyond that initially presented
in Bass (1985), for a particular type of
relationship between these two forms of
leadership in an organizational context.
Therefore, it is necessary to conceptually
outline the nature of relationship between
transformational and transactional
leadership processes. Addressing this issue is
important because it will facilitate
reconciliation of the differing views in the
existing research about the relationship
between transformational and transactional
leadership.
Issue 3: The distinction between
transformational and charismatic
leadership
In proposing the concept of transformational
leadership, Burns (1978) described
charismatic leadership as one of the forms of
transformational leadership. In some of the
subsequent research, however, charismatic
influence has come to be one of the central
dimensions of transformational leadership
(Bass, 1985; Waldman et al., 1990).
A different view is put forth by others who
suggest that transformational leadership is
distinct from charismatic leadership
(Sashkin, 1992) by indicating that
transformational leadership is a positive or
desirable form of leadership whereas
charismatic leadership is a leadership that
has strong potential for generating negative
outcomes. Some recent work still
distinguishes these two concepts (Yukl,
1999a, b) and suggests that these two
leadership forms may be incompatible with
each other (Yukl, 1999b).
[ 399 ]
Badrinarayan S. Pawar
Central conceptual issues in
transformational leadership
research
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/7 [2003] 397-406
[ 400 ]
Yet another view (Shamir et al., 1993) has
suggested that while charismatic leadership
can have either positive or negative
consequences, a positive category of
consequences can be regarded as
transformational effects of charismatic
leadership. This seems to suggest
charismatic leadership as a phenomenon
whose one of the manifestations can be
similar to transformational leadership.
Still another view can be seen in the work
of Conger and Kanungo (1998, pp. 15-16)
which indicates that the behavioral
components specified in Bass and associates'
transformational leadership model and those
specified in other charismatic leadership
models are similar. Thus, this view suggests
a similarity between transformational and
charismatic leadership.
This issue is significant because in the
absence of clear specification of the
distinction between these two terms, these
terms have been used in differing manners
by researchers. Thus, for instance, Bryman
(1992, p. 104) and Pawar and Eastman (1997)
note the interchangeable use of these terms
by some researchers. Given this lack of clear
specification of the distinction between
transformational leadership and charismatic
leadership and given the resulting diversity
in referring to these two perspectives and in
the use of these terms, distinguishing
transformational leadership from
charismatic leadership becomes another
issue that transformational leadership
research needs to address.
Issue 4: The focus of transformational
leadership in attaining organizational
change
Attainment of change is an important aspect
of transformational leadership. In the
existing literature, the specification of
change brought about by transformational
leadership focuses on two forms of changes.
First, some researchers focus mainly on
the change that is brought in followers (Bass,
1985). Although Bass (1985) also outlines how
transformational leaders bring about a
change in organizational culture, the main
focus in Bass's (1985) specification has been
on detailing the follower motivational
processes and dimensions associated with
transformational leadership and their
consequences for various changes in
followers. Such leader-subordinate dyadic
focus in transformational leadership
research is also noted in Yukl's (1999a)
observation on this aspect.
Second, some researchers (Tichy and
Devanna, 1986) have focused mainly on the
institutional or organizational change and
considered the changes in followers as one of
the requirements associated with the
institutional change process. A more
balanced position is reflected in Burns' (1978)
view that transformational leadership is
associated with attaining changes in societal
or institutional aspects as well as changes in
the followers' thinking and motivational
states.
Thus, the views in research suggest
different positions on whether
transformational leaders focus on attaining
change mainly in followers or in institutions
or in both. However, the criteria used for
assessing the effectiveness of
transformational leadership in a
specification of transformational leadership
will depend on the nature of change that is
associated with transformational leadership
in that specification. Therefore, it would be
difficult to accurately assess the effectiveness
of transformational leadership unless the
nature or content of change that it seeks to
attain is clearly specified. Thus, specifying
the nature of change that transformational
leaders seek to attain is an important issue
that the research needs to address.
Issue 5: Relationship between
organizational context and
transformational leadership
Various researchers (Bryman, 1992; Conger
and Kanungo, 1998; Pettigrew, 1987) have
noted the inadequate research attention
received by the relationship between
organizational context and transformational
leadership. In considering this issue, it is
important to note that organizational
contexts can be linked to transformational
leadership through various forms of
relationship. Three forms of such
relationship seem relatively significant.
First, different types of organizational
contexts can create different degrees of need
for transformational leadership. Some
research (Bass, 1998) has touched on this
aspect. Second, organizational contexts can
influence the degree to which
transformational leadership's operation will
be supported or opposed. Some research has
begun to explore this aspect (Pawar and
Eastman, 1997). Third, organizational
contexts could influence the nature of
transformational leadership behaviors that
emerge and operate in an organization. In an
organizational context, there are likely to be
values and norms, operationalized through
structure and ingrained through culture
(Pettigrew, 1987), that prescribe and
encourage certain transformational
behaviors while proscribe and penalize some
other transformational behaviors. These
Badrinarayan S. Pawar
Central conceptual issues in
transformational leadership
research
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/7 [2003] 397-406
values and norms in an organizational
context are likely to limit the variations in
the feasible transformational behaviors in a
given organization.
Addressing this issue is important because
it will facilitate predicting and explaining
transformational leadership effectiveness.
Transformational leadership effectiveness is
likely to be influenced by the extent to which
it is needed in a particular context, the extent
to which the context supports
transformational leadership's operations,
and the extent of match between the form of
transformational leadership behaviors
suitable for the context and the actual form of
transformational leadership behaviors used
in that context. Thus, a clearer
understanding of the above outlined three
aspects of the relationships between an
organizational context and transformational
leadership will help better predict and
explain the extent to which a particular form
of transformational leadership will be
effective in a particular organizational
context.
Issue 6: Types of transformational
leadership
Transformational leadership, as an
organizational mechanism that possibly
needs to be responsive to organizational
requirements and compatible with
organizational context, is unlikely to
manifest in a single form. Rather, there are
likely to be different types of
transformational leaders. Consistent with
this, Burns' (1978) work specifies different
types of transforming leadership in the
context of social change. However,
transformational leadership research has not
systematically specified the possible different
forms of it in organizational contexts.
There have been some works that have
specified various types of transformational
leadership or types within a particular aspect
of transformational leadership. For instance,
Westley and Mintzberg (1989) have outlined
different types of visionary leaders. They,
however, focused mainly on one aspect of
transformational leadership envisioning.
Pawar and Eastman (1997) have specified
context-confronting and context-harnessing
as two ``extreme types'' of transformational
leadership. They, however, did not identify
other possible transformational leadership
forms between the two ``extreme types'' that
they specified. Bass (1999, p. 15) referred to
the distinction between ``truly
transformational leader'' and
``pseudotransformational leader'' which
suggests two types ± positive and negative ±
of transformational leadership. This
outlining of two positive and negative forms
however does not provide a specification of a
comprehensive set of transformational
leadership forms.
Thus, there is no theoretically derived
comprehensive specification of the types of
transformational leadership in an
organizational context. Addressing this issue
is important as identification of different
types of transformational leadership will
facilitate the examination of the possible
matches between transformational
leadership types and the types of
organizational contexts.
A critical commentary
The above outlined conceptual issues in
transformational leadership research point
out various inadequacies in the existing
research. Based on these issues, a critical
commentary on this research is outlined
below.
The above discussion constitutes a critique
of the existing transformational leadership
research. Issue one indicates that the
applicability of transformational leadership
in economic organizations, in comparison to
its applicability in social movements, has not
been assessed. Issues two and three indicate
that there is a need for more adequate
specification of the distinction between
transformational and transactional
leadership and between transformational
leadership and charismatic leadership. Issue
four suggests that the focus of
transformational leadership in terms of the
nature of change attained by it needs to be
more clearly specified. Issue five suggests the
need for examining the organization's context
influences on transformational leadership.
Issue six suggests the need for more
comprehensively specifying the various types
of transformational leaderships.
The impact of these issues on the existing
transformational leadership can be seen in
some of the features of this research. Some
aspects in Burns' (1978) specification of
transforming leadership indicate that it leads
to motivational and moral elevation of
followers, it converts followers into leaders
and followers and leaders both raise each
other to higher levels of motivation and
morality. An extension of these views is seen
in the present perspective of
transformational leadership where moral
elevation of followers has been suggested as
one of its important aspects (Bass and
Steidlmeier, 1999). In contrast, Katz and Kahn
(1967, p. 389) indicate that in certain kinds of
organization:
[ 401 ]
Badrinarayan S. Pawar . . . the technological system creates experts
Central conceptual issues in who are heavily task oriented, who fly no
transformational leadership flags, and who are completely bored by
research
ideological considerations. As experts in
Leadership & Organization technology, they move into positions of
Development Journal
leadership and pin on walls their credo,
24/7 [2003] 397-406
`data wins'.
Inadequate appreciation of the differences in
social and organizational contexts in the
existing transformational leadership
research is likely to have resulted in
inadequate attention being paid to the
possible tension between the ``morally
elevating'' and ``technologically constrained''
conceptions of leadership.
The issues of the distinction between
transformational and transactional
leadership and transformational and
charismatic leadership indicate that the
concept of transformational leadership has
not been adequately distinguished from the
concepts of transactional and charismatic
leadership. While in the process of
advancement of knowledge, the processes of
better concept formation and refinement in
theorization tend to reinforce each other
(Kaplan, 1964), these two issues suggest that
this reinforcement does not seem to have
adequately occurred in transformational
leadership research. While the theory of
transformational leadership has improved
considerably over the last about two decades,
the concept of transformational leadership
specified in Bass (1985) has not undergone
comparable refinement during this period.
The issue of inadequate clarity on the
nature of change that transformational
leadership brings about has resulted in an
emphasis in the existing research on
examining predominantly individual level
outcomes (e.g. follower satisfaction, effort).
There has been little systematic research on
the relationship between organizational level
outcomes and transformational leadership.
For instance, in the several studies covered
in the meta-analysis of transformational and
transactional leadership effectiveness (Lowe
et al., 1996), most of the studies had
individual level outcomes as indicators of
transformational leadership effectiveness
while only a few had organizational level
outcomes as indicators of transformational
leadership effectiveness.
The issue of the inadequate attention to the
contextual influences on transformational
leadership is likely to account for the
relatively context-free conceptualization of
transformational leadership in the existing
research. The critique of such a position is
reflected in other views that call for a more
contextually embedded study of change or
transformational leadership (Pettigrew,
[ 402 ]
1987). This can also account for the relatively
limited attention paid in the existing
research to the moderators of the
relationship of transformational leadership
and its outcomes. This could misguide the
research in specifying simple models of
transformational leadership that ignore
contextual factors impacting the emergence,
form, and effectiveness of transformational
leadership.
The issue of inadequate attention to the
specification of various types of
transformational leadership can account for
the focus of the existing research in studying
effects of ``the'' transformational leadership
rather than examining effects of different
types of transformational leadership.
Correction in this focus could broaden our
understanding of the outcome variables
influenced by transformational leadership as
different types of transformational
leadership may influence different outcome
variables.
Thus, the conceptual issues that have
emerged in the existing transformational
leadership research constitute a critique of
transformational leadership research. The
presence of these issues suggests that the
conceptualization of transformational
leadership is leaning towards being:
. inadequately contrasted with the
transformational leadership in social
contexts;
. unclear in its distinction from
charismatic and transactional leadership;
. considerably context-free;
. unclear about the focus ± individual or
organizational level ± of the change
attained by it; and
. uninformed about the possible variations
that can occur in transformational
leadership.
Implications for research
Research required for addressing these
issues
One of the basic implications of the issues
identified in this paper is that future
research needs to pay considerable attention
to addressing several conceptual issues in
transformational leadership research. First,
there is a need to conceptually examine the
distinction between transformational
leadership in a general social context and
transformational leadership in economic
organizations. This would result in not only
an organizationally more relevant
specification of the transformational
leadership process but also in a more suitable
identifier or label for this concept in an
Badrinarayan S. Pawar
Central conceptual issues in
transformational leadership
research
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/7 [2003] 397-406
organizational context. Second, research
needs to provide a precise specification of the
transformational leadership concept that
allows it to be conceptually related to other
concepts of charismatic leadership and
transactional leadership. Third, conceptual
research is needed to specify whether the
primary focus of transformational leadership
process is on attaining organizational change
or inducing change in followers or both.
Fourth, research is also needed to specify
more comprehensive relationships between
organizational context and transformational
leadership. Fifth, there is a need for research
to specify different types of transformational
leadership.
While research on these issues will require
effort from various scholars working on
different aspects, an outline of a possible
research approach for addressing these
issues is provided in the next section. This
outline would hopefully encourage
researchers to take up this research task and
serve as a guideline for carrying out this
research task.
An outline of a possible approach for
addressing these issues
The above issues collectively indicate that at
a theoretical level, transformational
leadership research:
. has not focused on all the relevant aspects
of transformational leadership
phenomenon (e.g. types of
transformational leadership);
. has not clearly distinguished the concept
of transformational leadership from other
related concepts (e.g. the concept of
charismatic leadership); and
. has provided theories that do not
adequately specify some of the conceptual
relationships (e.g. relationship with
contextual aspects) that are necessary for
a clear understanding of the
transformational leadership phenomenon.
In locating a possible source of these
theoretical inadequacies, it is relevant to
note that Kaplan (1964) points out that
concepts outline paths in the logical space
and that better concept specification
facilitates improved theorization. This
suggests that appropriate specification of the
concept associated with a phenomenon can
suggest directions in which the theoretical
network associated with that phenomenon
can be extended. In a similar vein, Osigweh
(1989) notes that concepts are building blocks
of science and that malformation of concepts
can result in focusing on inappropriate
aspects of the phenomenon under
examination. These views suggest that the
above outlined issues of inappropriate focus
and excluded aspects in the transformational
leadership research and the unclear
distinctions between transformational
leadership concept and other related
concepts can be approached by starting with
providing a more appropriate concept
specification for the transformational
leadership phenomenon.
Thus, the process of approaching these
issues can begin by more appropriately
specifying the transformational leadership
concept. Furthermore, as there is a need to
more adequately distinguish the concept of
transformational leadership from the related
concepts of transactional and charismatic
leadership, it may be appropriate to specify
these concepts in common conceptual space
where the interrelationship among these
concepts can be clearly specified based on
their locations in this conceptual space.
Specification of a typology is one way of
providing a conceptual space. Different
classes or types in the typology divide the
conceptual place into a set of subspaces.
Thus, identifying a suitable set of conceptual
dimensions and crossing them to form
different classes/types that can reflect
transformational, transactional, and
charismatic leadership is one possible
approach to place these concepts in a
common conceptual space. Here, in choosing
dimensions for mapping the conceptual
space, attention can be paid to the distinction
between transformational leadership in
societal contexts and that in economic
organizations. Deriving conceptual
dimensions of relevance to organizational
context will also help in addressing the issue
(issue number one) about the applicability of
transformational leadership to economic
organizations. Thus, this approach reflects
one way to address issues one, two, and three
outlined earlier.
For addressing the issue of the focus of
transformational leadership in attaining
organizational change (issue four), it will
help to incorporate both organizationally
directed and individually directed behaviors
in the transformational leadership
conceptualization. A similar approach has
been used in the research on the concept of
organizational citizenship behavior where
organizationally directed and individually
directed dimensions of organizational
citizenship behavior have been incorporated
into the concept (Williams and Anderson,
1991). This approach can help address issue
four outlined earlier.
For addressing the issue of the influence of
context on transformational leadership
(issue five), further theorization to link
[ 403 ]
Badrinarayan S. Pawar
Central conceptual issues in
transformational leadership
research
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/7 [2003] 397-406
[ 404 ]
contextual aspects to transformational
leadership or to various types of
transformational leadership will be
necessary. Existing works on this aspect
(Pawar and Eastman, 1997; Shamir and
Howell, 1999) can serve as a possible base on
which subsequent conceptual and empirical
examinations can be built. Here, linking
specific behavioral aspects (means) and goals
sought by transformational leadership (ends)
can be used to identify contextual factors that
can support or inhibit emergence and
operation of specific behaviors (means) and
attainment of specific goals (ends) of
transformational leadership. This is one of
the approaches to address issue five outlined
earlier.
For addressing the issue of specifying
different transformational leadership types
(issue six), both typologies as conceptual
classifications and taxonomies as empirical
classifications (Hambrick, 1984) can be used
to conceptually specify or empirically derive
various types of transformational leadership.
This will help address issue six outlined
earlier. It needs to be noted that specification
of a classification scheme for addressing this
issue would result in two levels of
classification schemes. One classification
scheme will be at a broader level for
distinguishing the transformational
leadership concept from transactional and
charismatic leadership concepts to address
issues two and three as outlined earlier in
this section. Another classification scheme
will be at a finer level distinguishing
different types within the category of
transformational leadership to address
issue six.
It needs to be noted that the above outlined
approach to address various conceptual
issues in transformational leadership
research represent just one set of tentative
possibilities. A more focused attention to this
aspect will indicate other possible
approaches. Thus, the above discussion of the
possible approaches needs to be viewed as an
exercise in pointing out the feasibility of
addressing the earlier outlined issues rather
than as a specification of the only approach
to addressing the issues.
Research required for identification of
additional issues
This paper has identified a set of issues,
provided critical commentary based on these
issues and outlined a possible research
approach to addressing these issues. While
the issues identified here are significant
issues in transformational leadership
research, the paper does not imply that there
are no other significant issues in
transformational leadership research. In
contrast, by identifying a set of interrelated
issues and by pointing out their significance,
this paper will encourage researchers to
identify additional issues and highlight their
significance. Two examples of the possible
directions in which these explorations for
identifying additional issues can proceed are
outlined below.
First, most of the transformational
leadership research has been studied from a
position which, according to the
classification of paradigms in Morgan (1980),
can be characterized as the functionalist
paradigm. Possibly, additional insights and
perspectives would emerge if
transformational leadership is examined
from other paradigmatic positions such as
interpretive perspective or radical humanist
perspective. Some of the approaches seem to
adopt such an approach. These include
studying charismatic leadership from a
dramaturgical perspective (Gardner and
Avolio, 1998) or viewing leadership as a
phenomenon constructed partly because of
followers' needs for the concept of leadership
and through processes of social contagion
(Meindl, 1990). These approaches suggest that
new insights and additional issues can be
yielded if transformational leadership is
studied from positions other than the
functionalist position. Thus, studying the
phenomenon of transformational leadership
from alternative paradigmatic positions is
another possible direction for future
research to identify additional issues in
transformational leadership research.
Second, as noted earlier, charisma
constitutes a significant component of
transformational leadership (Bass, 1985).
Thus, it is likely that cultural values could be
intertwined with the nature and operation of
transformational leadership. This aspect has
been addressed to some extent by Bass (1997).
Bass (1997) has drawn on empirical evidence
and pointed out that three of the central
corollaries of transformational leadership
hold across cultures. However, he has also
noted that the specific behaviors of
transformational and transactional leaders
could vary across cultures and these
variations could be particularly salient
``particularly as one crosses into the
non-western world'' (Bass, 1997, p. 136). Thus,
assessing the influence of cultural frames on
transformational leadership is another
direction in which future research can
proceed and which could lead to
identification of additional issues in
transformational leadership research.
Badrinarayan S. Pawar
Central conceptual issues in
transformational leadership
research
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/7 [2003] 397-406
Implications for practice
As noted earlier, transformational leadership
is very closely linked to organizational
change (Tichy and Devanna, 1986). Thus,
addressing the conceptual issues identified
here will in general benefit the practice of
organizational change and development.
Further, the examination of conceptual
issues in this paper also suggests several
specific implications for practice. First,
organizational decision makers need to
carefully reflect if transformational
leadership is truly necessary or applicable in
their organizational contexts. Second,
organizational decision makers also need to
assess the type of transformational
leadership behaviors that are likely to be
most effective in their organizational
contexts and then induct transformational
leaders with a capacity to perform these
behaviors. Third, in specifying the role of
transformational leadership, organizational
decision makers need to be clear as to
whether they require the transformational
leader to focus mainly on inducing change in
followers or in the organizational goals and
direction or in both of these aspects. Fourth,
the criteria chosen for assessing the
effectiveness of transformational leadership
need to be identified in such a way that they
are consistent with the role ± change in
followers and/or change in organizational
goals and directions ± specified to the
transformational leadership. Finally,
organizational decision makers need to
anticipate that their organization's context
could influence the transformational
leadership's operation in their organizations.
While the present paper yields the above
thought pointers for the practice, the
fulfillment of the research requirements
identified earlier can provide valuable inputs
to the organizational decision makers for
making suitable decisions with respect to
these thought pointers. Thus, both the
awareness of these thought pointers and
efforts to address them could enhance
organizations' ability to induct, govern, and
utilize transformational leadership.
References
Bass, B.M. (1999), ``Two decades of research and
development in transformational leadership'',
European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 9-32.
Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership:
Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Bass, B.M. (1997), ``Does the
transactional-transformational leadership
paradigm transcend organizational and
national boundaries'', American Psychologist,
Vol. 52, pp. 130-9.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and
Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999), ``Ethics,
character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior'', Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 10, pp. 181-217.
Blau, P.M. and Scott, W.R. (1963), Formal
Organizations: A Comparative Approach,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Beyer, J.M. (1999), ``Taming and promoting
charisma to change organizations'',
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 307-30.
Bryman, A. (1992), Charisma and Leadership in
Organizations, Sage, London.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper and Row,
New York, NY.
Conger, J.A. (1999), ``Charismatic and
transformational leadership in organizations:
an insider's perspective on these developing
streams of research'', Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 10, pp. 145-79.
Conger J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1998),
Charismatic Leadership in Organizations,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Gardner, W.L. and Avolio, B.J. (1998), ``The
charismatic relationship: a dramaturgical
perspective'', Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 23, pp. 32-58.
Hambrick, D.C. (1984), ``Taxonomic approaches to
studying strategy: some conceptual and
methodological issues'', Journal of
Management, Vol. 10, pp. 27-41.
Hollander, E.P. (1993), ``Legitimacy, power, and
influence: a perspective on relational features
of leadership'', in Chemers, M.M. and Ayman,
R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and Research:
Perspectives and Directions, Academic Press,
San Diego, CA, pp. 29-48.
Hunt, J.G. (1999), ``Transformational/charismatic
leadership's transformation of the field: an
historical essay'', Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 10, pp. 129-44.
Kaplan, A. (1964), The Conduct of Inquiry:
Methodology for Behavioral Science, Chandler
Publishing, New York, NY.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1967), Social Psychology
of Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G. and Sivasubramniam,
N. (1996), ``Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional
leadership: a meta-analytic review'',
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7, 385-425.
Meindl, J.R. (1990), ``On leadership: an alternative
to the conventional wisdom'', in Staw, B.M.
and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 159-204.
Morgan, G. (1980), ``Paradigms, metaphors, and
puzzle solving in organization theory'',
[ 405 ]
Badrinarayan S. Pawar
Central conceptual issues in
transformational leadership
research
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/7 [2003] 397-406
The author expresses deep
gratitude to Jay A. Conger
for his review of and
valuable comments on an
earlier version of this paper.
Some of the work in this
paper was completed while
the author was a member of
faculty at City University of
Hong Kong
[ 406 ]
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25,
pp. 605-21.
Osigweh, C.A.B. Yg. (1989), ``Concept fallibility in
organizational science'', Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 579-94.
Pawar, B.S. and Eastman, K.K. (1997), ``The nature
and implications of contextual influences on
transformational leadership: a conceptual
examination'', Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 22, pp. 80-109.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1987), ``Context and action
in the transformation of the firms'', Journal
of Management Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 649-70.
Sashkin, M. (1992), ``Strategic leadership
competencies'', in Phillips, R.L. and Hunt,
J.G. (Eds), Strategic Leadership, Quorum
Books, Westport, CT, pp. 139-60.
Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1993),
``The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: a self-concept based theory'',
Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 577-94.
Shamir, B. and Howell, J.M. (1999),
``Organizational and contextual influences on
the emergence and effectiveness of
charismatic leadership'', Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 257-83.
Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Tichy, N. and Devanna, M. (1986),
Transformational Leadership, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
Vandenberghe, C. (1999), ``Transactional vs.
transformational leadership: suggestions for
future research'', European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 26-32.
Waldman, D.A., Bass, B.M. and Yammarino, F.J.
(1990), ``Adding to contingent-reward
behavior'', Group & Organization Studies,
Vol. 15, pp. 382-94.
Westley, F. and Mintzberg, H. (1989), ``Visionary
leadership and strategic management'',
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10,
pp. 17-32.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), ``Job
satisfaction and organizational commitment
as predictors of organizational citizenship
behaviors'', Journal of Management, Vol. 17,
pp. 601-17.
Yukl, G. (1999a), ``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. (1999b), ``An evaluation of conceptual
weaknesses in transformational and
charismatic leadership theories'', Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 285-305.