Transformational Leadership Plan Essay Example for Free

Transformational Leadership Plan Essay ABSTRACT Innovation and Transformational Leadership with respect to modern organizational hierarchies. The paper goes on to synthesize aspects of transformational leadership into an individual leadership plan, summarize outcomes of transformational leadership and innovation and present varied views stemming from empirical data on organizational philosophies. Several scholarly journals and industry papers were gleaned, they are listed in the annotated bibliography. Results and Outcomes of Innovation and Transformational Leadership Transformational leaders motivate others to do more than they originally intended and often even more than they thought possible. Such leaders set more challenging expectations and typically achieve higher performances. Transformational leadership is an expansion of transactional leadership. Transactional leadership emphasizes the transaction or exchange that takes place among leaders, colleagues, and followers. This exchange is based on the leader discussing with others what is required and specifying the conditions and rewards these others will receive if they fulfill the requirements. True transformational leaders raise the level of moral maturity of those whom they lead. They convert their followers into leaders. They broaden and enlarge the interests of those whom they lead. They motivate their associates, colleagues, followers, clients, and even their bosses to go beyond their individual self-interests for the good of the group, organization, or society. Transformational leaders address each followers sense of self-worth in order to engage the follower in true commitment and involvement in the effort at hand. This is one of the things that transformational leadership adds to the transactional exchange. Transformational leadership adds to transactional leadership in its effects on follower satisfaction and performance. Transformational leadership does not replace transactional leadership. That is, constructive and especially corrective transactions may have only marginal impact on followers unless accompanied by one or more components of transformational leadership for getting the most out of transactions: The follower needs to feel valued by the leader, the follower needs to find meaning in what he or she is doing, and the follower needs a sense of ownership in whats being done. Transactional leadership, particularly contingent reward, provides a broad basis for effective leadership, but a greater amount of effort, effectiveness, innovation, risk taking, and satisfaction can be achieved by transactional leadership if it is augmented by transformational leadership. When peers of military cadet leaders were asked what characterized the important traits of a good leader, they tended to describe such traits of inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration as self-confidence, persuasiveness, concern for the well-being of others, the ability to articulate ones ideas and thoughts, providing models to be emulated by others, holding high expectations for him—or herself and others, keeping others well-informed, and maintaining high self-motivation. Given a team task, the innovation process begins with the creativity of individuals. The generation of a new idea is a cognitive process, located within individuals, albeit fostered by interaction processes in teams. Thus, first and foremost, innovative individuals are both creative and innovative (i.e., they dont just have creative ideas; they also try to implement them). They are people who have a preference for thinking in novel ways, who think globally instead of locally (distinguishing the forest from the trees). They have appropriate intellectual abilities, including synthetic abilities (to see problems in new ways and escape the bounds of conventional thinking), analytic abilities to recognize which ideas are worth pursuing, and the practical contextual abilities to persuade others of the value of their ideas. Having a good idea about whether the Earth revolves around the sun or vice versa is not enough. Galileo, if he were alive today, might note that Richard Branson and Bill Gates did not succeed by simply being mavericks; they were also able to charm, persuade, and inspire people. To be innovative and creative we also require sufficient knowledge of the field to be able to move it forward, while not being so conceptually trapped in it that we are unable to conceive of alternative courses. People who are confident of their abilities are more likely to innovate in the workplace. In a study of role innovation among more than 2,000 UK managers, it was found that confidence and motivation to develop knowledge and skills predicted innovation following job change. Tolerance of ambiguity, widely associated with creativity, enables individuals to avoid the problems of following mental ruts and increases the chances of unusual responses and the discovery of novelty (Burpitt Bigoness, 2002). Innovative people also tend to be self-disciplined, with a high degree of drive and motivation and a concern with achieving excellence. This perseverance against social pressures presumably reduces the dangers of premature abandonment. Minority influence theory in social psychology suggests that perseverance acts to bring about change in the views of majorities and is a necessary behavioral style among innovators. An employee of 3M discovered Post-it notes because he sang in the church choir and needed some effective way of marking the place of hymns between services. Knowing of an adhesive with poor properties (it didnt stick well) being explored at 3M, he had the idea of using it on small strips of paper to mark the hymnal. But the real innovation came in his persistence in selling the idea to secretaries, chief executives, the marketing department, and the sales department in the organization. It became an annual $200 million business for 3M. Innovative people tend to be self-directed, enjoying and requiring freedom in their work. They have a high need for freedom, control, and discretion in the workplace and appear to find bureaucratic limitations or the exercise of control by managers frustrating. Such people need clear work objectives along with high autonomy to perform well. Indeed, in a study of 13 oil company teams, Jerry et. Al. found that the innovativeness of individuals in teams was superior as a predictor of team innovation to measures of group climate and process. In a more sophisticated longitudinal study of 27 top management teams in hospitals, it was found that the proportion of innovative individuals within the team did not predict the overall level of innovation but did predict the radical ness (changes to the status quo) of the innovations implemented by teams. Another influence on team innovation is the extent to which team members have the relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities to work effectively in groups. Some researchers believe that team members require appropriate team knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), or â€Å"team integration skills†. These are distinct from the technical KSAs that are relevant to task performance (such as medical skills for a physician on a breast cancer care team). They include conflict resolution skills, collaborative problem-solving skills, and communication skills such as the skill to utilize decentralized communication networks to enhance communication. Other key integration skills, they argue, include goal setting and performance management and the skill to coordinate and synchronize activities, information, and tasks among members. The more of these integration skills team members have, the more likely it is that the benefits of team working and team diversity will manifest, not just in terms of team performance, but also in innovation proposals and their successful implementation. Leadership processes in teams will moderate the relationship among team member characteristics, team processes, and innovation. Leadership processes will either encourage or block the expression of behaviors and skills supportive of team innovation. A dominant, directive leader may prevent attempts by team members to bring about change and steadily reduce their confidence and perseverance in initiating innovation implementation. Moreover, such a leader might inhibit the expression of team KSAs by repeatedly dominating decision making or discussion. A more transformational leadership style is likely to enhance the impact of individual characteristics such as confidence, innovativeness, and tolerance of ambiguity on group processes (such as support for innovation) and thereby innovation implementation. Synthesize aspects of transformational leadership into an individual leadership plan It has been discovered that most of the large global companies studied operate, to one degree or another, under a traditional model of strong individual leadership at the top. Moreover, the quality of that leadership bears on the overall performance of those companies. A few of the companies studied—and some business units within others—are characterized by a different pattern of leadership. Instead of leadership being a solo act, an aria sung by the CEO, in these organizations it is a shared responsibility, more like a chorus of diverse voices singing in unison. Significantly, this characteristic is more than the frequently observed phenomenon of â€Å"cascading† leadership (in which a strong leader at the top empowers other leaders down the line). Although cascading is often a part of what is observed, more to the point in these organizations many of the key tasks and responsibilities of leadership are institutionalized in the systems, practices, and cultures of the organization. Typically, cascading leadership depends on the continuing support of whoever is the leader of an organization at any given time; behavior that is not personality dependent. Eventually, it has been realized that this form of leadership is rooted in systems, processes, and culture. Without the presence of a high-profile leader (or â€Å"superior† goading or exhorting them on) that people at all levels in these organizations †¦ Act more like owners and entrepreneurs than employees or hired hands (that is, they assume owner like responsibility for financial performance and managing risk). Take the initiative to solve problems and to act, in general, with a sense of urgency. Willingly accept accountability for meeting commitments, and for living the values of the organization. Share a common philosophy and language of leadership that paradoxically includes tolerance for contrary views and a willingness to experiment. Create, maintain, and adhere to systems and procedures designed to measure and reward these distributed leadership behaviors. Obviously, this is not a new model of leadership. Doubtless, it has been around a long time and we, missed it because we were blinded by the powerful light that emanates from high-profile leaders. We were also prisoners of the current wisdom about the necessity for personalized, take-charge leadership—particularly in times of rapid change. Moreover, it is important to stress that the organization based model identified was not the only one observed, nor was it necessarily always the most effective. In fact, the two most successful companies in an empirical sample operate, on two different models, Oracle being headed by a single strong leader, and Enron with widely diffused and systematized leadership responsibilities. Thus we are not advocating a newly discovered â€Å"best way to lead†; instead, calling attention to a previously unnoticed— but equally viable—alternative to the traditional leadership model. Among other things, this discovery helps to explain some persistent contradictions to the dominant model of leadership. If leadership were solely an individual trait †¦ Why is it that some companies continually demonstrate the capacity to innovate, renew strategies and products, and outperform competition in their industries over the tenures of several different chief executives? Intel, for instance, has been a rip-roaring success under the leadership of, in sequence, Gordon Moore, Andrew Grove, and now, Craig Barrett. Why is it that some CEOs who have succeeded in one organization often turn in so-so performances in the next? Consider George Fisher, who was a star at Motorola, but far less effective at Kodak. (Conversely, why is it that some companies headed by singularly unimpressive CEOs nonetheless rack up good performance records?) Why is that academics are unable to quantify the relationship between CEO style on one hand and organizational performance on the other? (In fact, they have found no objective correlation between those two factors—concluding, unhelpfully, that â€Å"it all depends.†) Moreover, as history shows, businesses that become dependent on a single leader run a considerable risk. If that individual retires or leaves (or dies in office), the organization may well lose its continuing capacity to succeed—witness the performance of General Motors after Alfred Sloan, ITT after Harold Geneen, Polaroid after Edwin Land, and Coca-Cola after Roberto Goizueta. More frequently, organizations learn the hard way that no one individual can save a company from mediocre performance—and no one individual, no matter how gifted a leader, can be â€Å"right† all the time. As one CEO said, â€Å"None of us is as smart as all of us.† Since leadership is, by definition, doing things through the efforts of others, it is obvious that there is little that a business leader—acting alone—can do to affect company performance (other than try to â€Å"look good† to investors) (Howell    Avoiio, 2003). In light of these observations, it should not have been so surprising that our research revealed that, in many successful companies, leadership is treated as an institutional capacity and not solely as an individual trait. It turns out that many corporations whose familiar names perennially appear on â€Å"most respected† lists are ones with the highest institutionalized leadership capacities. Like individual IQs, companies have collective LQs—leadership quotients— that can be measured and compared. (Moreover, unlike individual IQ an organizations leadership capacity can be bolstered through appropriately directed effort.) Hence, we now are better able to explain why companies like Intel, ABB, GE, Enron, BP, Ford, Nestlà ©, and Motorola continue to renew themselves year after year, and over the tenures of many different leaders: Such companies are not only chock-full of leaders from the executive suite to the shop floor, they make conscious efforts to build their LQs, that is, their overall organizational leadership capacities. That last point requires an important clarification. Some companies with continuing records of success do not pay much, or any, attention to traditional—that is, individual—leadership development. Instead of asking â€Å"What qualities do we need to develop in our leader?† these companies continually ask â€Å"What qualities do we need to develop in our organization?† And, though this may seem to defy the current wisdom about the importance of leadership, on reflection it squares with experience. At Motorola, for example, there has been a decades long pattern of self-renewal that has continually belied the predictions of Wall Street analysts who, on at least four occasions, have written the company off for dead. When it has suffered one of its periodic setbacks, how could Motorola reasonably be expected to turn itself around without a take-charge leader like Jack Welch at its helm? But it has done so repeatedly, and under the collective leadership of several different individuals. In light of what we have learned from our study, we posit that the secret sauce at Motorola is the companys strong, institutionalized leadership capacity— systems consciously created by former-CEO Bob Galvins leadership teams over a period of thirty years (Dong et. Al. 2001). And the effectiveness of the organizational leadership model should not come as a surprise to those who have tried to change the behavior of a CEO—or of any executive whose career has been validated by rising to the top. Powerful executives tend to see leadership as positional. To them, by definition, the CEO is the leader of the corporation. For example, a couple of years ago we suggested to the CEO of a Fortune 500 company that he (and his executive team) might benefit from a leadership development program. He looked at us as if we were space aliens and testily replied, â€Å"If the board thought there was someone who was more qualified to lead this company, they would have named him and not me.† Given that such ego-driven denial is fairly common in executive suites, it makes practical sense that the high-LQ companies in our study focus on identifying business-related activities as the source of leadership development—that is, they stress improving the ability of their leaders collectively to do their central tasks, rather than on trying to fix them as individuals. The lesson we take from this is not that individual leadership behaviors are unimportant, but that in some cases, at least, it may be more effective to treat them as secondary to organizational issues. Moreover, it is far easier for leaders to learn to do things differently in terms of business processes than it is for them to change who they are. III. Summarize the outcomes of transformational leadership and innovation Among the components of transformational leadership, idealized influence and inspirational leadership are most effective and satisfying; individualized consideration is a bit less so. But in turn, all four 1s of transformational leadership are more effective than is constructive transaction. However, constructive transactions remain reasonably effective and satisfying in most situations, except where a leader has no control of the ways a follower may be rewarded for good performance. Actively taking corrective action—that is, managing by exception by arranging to monitor the performance of followers—is somewhat less effective and satisfying, but passively waiting for problems to arise or remaining oblivious until a mishap occurs is seen as poor, ineffective leadership and is dissatisfying. The most ineffective and dissatisfying style is laissez-faire leadership avoiding leadership and abdicating responsibilities. Analyses of over 5,000 cases have affirmed these findings. Transformational leadership adds to transactional leadership in its effects on follower satisfaction and performance. Transformational leadership does not replace transactional leadership. That is, constructive and especially corrective transactions may have only marginal impact on followers unless accompanied by one or more components of transformational leadership for getting the most out of transactions: The follower needs to feel valued by the leader, the follower needs to find meaning in what he or she is doing, and the follower needs a sense of ownership in whats being done. Transactional leadership, particularly contingent reward, provides a broad basis for effective leadership, but a greater amount of effort, effectiveness, innovation, risk taking, and satisfaction can be achieved by transactional leadership if it is augmented by transformational leadership. Transformational leadership can be directive or participative, as well as democratic or authoritarian, elitist or leveling. Sometimes, transformational leadership is misunderstood as elitist and antidemocratic. Since the 1930s, the praises of democratic, participative leadership have been sung. Most managers have at least learned that before making a decision it pays to consult with those who will implement the decision, although fewer managers pursue a democratic vote or strive for consensus in a participative discussion with ail those involved. There are many good reasons for encouraging shared decision making, empowering followers, and self-managing. Nonetheless, many circumstances call for a leader to be authoritative, decisive and directive. Democratic decisions can become a pooling of ignorance among a group of novices. Novices may wish direction and advice on what to do and how to do it. Even when no leader is appointed, someone must begin to take initiatives and soon comes to be seen as a leader. Many confuse transformational leadership with democratic, participative leadership. It often may be so, but at times it can also be directive, decisive, and authoritative. Idealized leaders can direct followers who are counting on them to help get the team out of a crisis by employing radical solutions to deal with the problems. Again, inspirational leaders can be highly directive in their appeals. Intellectually stimulating leaders may challenge their followers. Individually considerate leaders could rise above the demands for equality from their followers to treat them differently according to their different needs for growth. At the same time, transformational leaders can share vision building and Idea generation that could be a democratic and collective enterprise. Such leaders can encourage follower participation in the change processes involved. In the same way, transactional leadership can be either directive or participative. Most leaders profiles include both transformational and transactional leadership. The attitudes and behavior of Otto Von Bismarck, whose efforts led to the unification of Germany in 1871, illustrate how transformational and transactional leadership can be directive or participative, democratic or authoritative (Deborah, 1999). Interviews with executives about the leadership they had seen produced numerous behavioral examples of transformational leadership. Idealized influence or charismatic leadership was attributed to the interviewees leaders for demonstrating such traits as setting examples, showing determination, possessing extraordinary talents, taking risks, creating in followers a sense of empowerment, showing dedication to â€Å"the cause, † creating a sense of a joint mission, dealing with crises using radical solutions, and engendering in their followers faith in the leadership. Inspirational leadership included providing meaning and challenge, painting an optimistic future, molding expectations, creating self-fulfilling prophesies, and thinking ahead. Intellectual stimulation was judged to be present when leaders questioned assumptions, encouraged followers to employ intuition, entertained ideas that may have seemed silly at first, created imaginative visions, asked subordinates to rework problems they thought had already been solved, and saw unusual patterns. Individualized consideration was apparent to interviewees when their leaders answered them with minimum delay, showed that they were concerned for their followers well-being, assigned tasks based on needs and abilities, encouraged two-way exchanges of ideas, were available when needed, encouraged self-development, practiced walk around management, and effectively mentored, counseled, and coached. When peers of military cadet leaders were asked what characterized the important traits of a good leader, they tended to describe such traits of inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration as self-confidence, persuasiveness, concern for the well-being of others, the ability to articulate ones ideas and thoughts, providing models to be emulated by others, holding high expectations for him—or herself and others, keeping others well-informed, and maintaining high self-motivation (Atwater, Lau, Bass, Avolio, Camobreco, Whitmore, 1994). COMPONENTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP Transformational leaders do more with colleagues and followers than set up simple exchanges or agreements. They behave in ways to achieve superior results by employing one or more of the four components of transformational leadership. First, leadership is idealized when followers seek to identify with their leaders and emulate them. Second, the leadership inspires the followers with challenge and persuasion that provide meaning and understanding. Third, the leadership is intellectually stimulating, expanding the followers use of their abilities. Finally, the leadership is individually considerate, providing the followers with support, mentoring, and coaching. Each of these components can be assessed with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). In the questionnaire, you can describe yourself as a leader. Those who work for you, with you, and for whom you work can do the same assessment of you. Idealized Leadership. Transformational leaders behave in ways that make them role models for their followers. Such leaders are admired, respected, and trusted. Followers identify with these leaders and want to emulate them. Among the things the leader does to earn this credit is consider the needs of others over his or her own personal needs. The leader shares risks with followers and is consistent rather than arbitrary. He or she can be counted on to do the right thing, demonstrating high standards of ethical and moral conduct. He or she avoids using power for personal gain and in fact uses his or her power only when needed. Inspirational Motivation. Transformational leaders behave in ways that motivate and inspire those around them by providing meaning and challenge to their followers work Team spirit is aroused. Enthusiasm and optimism are displayed. The leader gets followers involved in envisioning attractive future states. The leader clearly communicates expectations that followers want to meet, and demonstrates commitment to goals and the shared vision. Intellectual Stimulation. Transformational leaders stimulate their followers efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways. Creativity is encouraged. There is no public criticism of individual members mistakes. New ideas and creative problem solutions are solicited from followers, who are included in the process of addressing problems and finding solutions. Followers are encouraged to try new approaches, and their ideas are not criticized if they differ from the leaders ideas. Individualized Consideration. Transformational leaders pay special attention to each individuals needs for achievement and growth by acting as a coach or mentor. Followers and colleagues are developed to successively higher levels of potential. Individualized consideration is practiced as follows: New learning opportunities are created along with a supportive climate. Individual differences in terms of needs and desires are recognized. The leaders behavior demonstrates acceptance of individual differences (e.g. some employees receive more encouragement, some more autonomy, others firmer standards, and still others more task structure). A two-way exchange in communication is encouraged, and â€Å"management by walking around† is practiced. Interactions with followers are personalized (e.g., the leader remembers previous conversations, is aware of individual concerns, and sees the individual as a whole person rather than as just an employee). The individually considerate leader listens effectively. The leader delegates tasks as a means of developing followers. Delegated tasks are monitored to see if the followers need additional direction or support and to assess progress; ideally, followers do not feel they are being checked up on. Bibliography Follower Motive Patterns as Situational Moderators for Transformational Leadership Effectiveness. Journal article by Jerry C. Wofford, J. Lee Whittington, Vicki L. Goodwin; Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 13, 2004 In this article, two important leadership questions are addressed. Is transformational leadership universally effective or are there situational moderators which augment or limit its effectiveness? Is transformational leadership more appropriately viewed in terms of individual-level analyses or of multi-level analyses? First, we examine the literature on the potential moderators within the transformational leadership paradigm and on the appropriate level of analysis for transformational leadership. The present research examines the potential moderator effects of the need for autonomy and of growth need strength. In addition, we examine whether transformational leaders adapt their behaviors to different subordinates or behave the same way with all of them. Perceptions of Transformational Leadership among Asian Americans and Caucasian Americans: A Level of Analysis Perspective Journal article by Dong I. Jung, Francis J. Yammarino; Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 8, 2001 This study asserted a theoretical framework of transformational leadership and its effects on several process and outcome variables among Asian Americans and Caucasian Americans from levels of analysis perspective. Nomological relationships among the constructs of interest also were tested. Results indicated that effects of transformational leadership were positive, but generally stronger among Asian Americans than among Caucasian Americans. Results from Within and Between Analysis indicated that variation in perceptions of transformational leadership and other measured variables in the two ethnic groups was mainly due to individual differences. Based on these results, we offer several theoretical and practical implications. Transformational Leadership and Urban Renewal Journal article by Deborah R. Rada; Journal of Leadership Studies, 1999 Despite Burnss contention that transformational leadership can occur at all levels of organization and society, most of the discussion of transformational leadership has centered on persons in traditional, hierarchical power positions. This paper focuses on a social movement, urban renewal, which involves volunteer activity and persons not in hierarchical power positions. The urban renewal efforts of two southern California towns are highlighted, with examples from other towns renewal efforts also cited. It is demonstrated that many renewal efforts utilize a transformational leadership approach. It is further shown that those efforts which employ a transformational leadership approach are often more successful than those that do not. It is concluded that transformational leadership does occur in voluntary, nonhierarchical groups and leads to substantive change. Further study is recommended to confirm these conclusions and advocate for broader recognition and encouragement of transfor mational leadership in various organizations. Howell. J. M. Avoiio, B. J. (2003). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control. and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business-unit performance. Journal Applied Psychology, 78, 89142   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚      Notes Portions of this paper were presented at the Academy of Management National Conference in Seattle, Washington, August 2003. Thanks to Major David Pursley, Dr. Orly Nobel, and several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of the manuscript. Dr. Dardis recently retired from active duty and is currently the Chief Learning Officer at Freddie Mac Corporation in McClean, Virginia. Burpitt, W. J., Bigoness, W. J. (1997). Leadership and innovation among teams: The impact of empowerment. Small Group Research, 28 (3), 414–423.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Most research and writing on creativity has focused on individual creativity, the â€Å"lone genius,† with little recognition of the social and group factors that influence the creative process. Research on creativity has sought to understand the factors responsible for creative people and activities. Personality, developmental experiences, culture, motivation, and cognitive skills are just a few of the factors that appear to underlie creative behavior