Abstract
This paper focuses on the servant and transformational leadership models which have strong connections to organizational change management. It analyzes various leadership theories to bring out the difference between these leadership models. The goal is to determine which model transforms management from fixed systems of performance to one which empowers employees to undertake their work creatively while inputting to decision making. First, a transformational leader is more willing to promote the intelligent of their followers as compared to servant leaders.
Servant leaders focus on improving their followers’ abilities while encouraging individual growth. Conversely, a transformational leader emphasizes on promoting worker’s creativity and innovation. That perception is vital since it demonstrates how the transformational leader places more emphasis on organizational growth and how the servant leader pays attention to personal growth. Second, a servant leader pays more attention to behaviors that value an individual at emotional levels. Third, a transformative leader is always ready to take enormous risks to gain institutional success and also remove unproductive systems and processes. Servant leadership only takes initiatives that are in line with the original vision and mission, and that add effectiveness and have a prime obligation to the organization’s gains. Transformative leaders consider risks as an essential element of leadership. Lastly, servant leadership is ready to abandon rewards and self-gain towards the advantage of their supporters. This paper analyzes these differing attributes with a focus on several leadership theories.
Introduction
Schools of Thought
Evolution of management research has led to the evolution of leadership theories. The emergency of many schools of thought has enhanced the understanding of management and how it relates to policy development. Mintzberg (1990) illustrates different contemporary and early schools of thought and the associated policy process. These comprise: scheme (Conceptual), positioning (analytical), intending (formal), entrepreneurship (innovative), learning (emergent), intellectual (emotional), politics (authority), condition (unassertive), configuration (periodic), cultural (ideological). The evolution and development of leadership theory over the over years is demonstrated by the general change from analytic approaches (organization, position, and design school), to more system methods (environmental, configurational and cultural school).
Evolution of Leadership Theory
Trait Theory
Understanding the management attributes is very vital in ascertaining the possibility for competent leadership in an organization. Modern managers face a vibrant business situation whereby changes are persistent issues. Followers should adopt the manager's vision and have the will to act towards achieving the leader’s vision to deal with changes effectively. Bolin (1997) insists that the trait theory is still popular in classifying features of real managers.
Northouse (2007, pp. 19) presents five essential characteristics for leaders to initiate active following; these comprise determination, knowledge, confidence, sociability, and sincerity. Leaders should have the knowledge to determine the dynamic aspects of their environment and have courage and determination to undertake remarkable institutional reforms. Besides, leaders should exhibit high levels of honesty and have the ability to inject this morality and values to their subjects (Banutu-Gomez, 2004). The affability attribute offers leaders a capacity to develop and generate true followership with enhanced shared meaning.
This hypothesis gave a vital enrichment to management theories. In the modern business setting, most leaders employ the “power-consent” method which focuses on task demands and puts less focus on persons rather than utilities for performing tasks (Northouse, 2007). This management technique results in reduced performance and confidence in the long run. Additionally, the “country club administration” tends to place greater importance on close relationships within the institution and deemphasizes production processes. This method of administration leads to high spirit but lower performance capability and expertise. The “impoverished management”, involves employing minimal force to sustain employee gratification and accomplish set objectives (Brown & Treviao, 2003). Such management method is slack and leads to inadequate production, careless norms, and mediocre morale.
Trait theory also insists on “team administration,” which consists of workers operating mutually within a relationship of trust and shared visions and honor for followers and management (Braga, 2002). Usually, “team administration” provides a great level of worker morale, gratification and performance effectiveness (Chalofsky, 2003, pp. 52-58). Lastly, “midst-of-the-road administration”, involves a scale of worker satisfaction and institutional production (Northouse, 2007). Such management method appears to be most effective due to its balance approach, but at times, results in complacency and mediocrity in workplaces. Hence, the leadership techniques have its benefits and shortcomings.
Contemporary Leadership model
Leadership techniques
Different leadership techniques have surfaced such as transactional, charming, situational, transformative and servant. First, charming leader manifests extraordinary strong management traits that direct and inspire supports by enhancing their engagement to common visions (Hoogh et al., 2004). Secondly, a transaction leader engages in communal exchange which involves a present-based transaction with their supporters. Further, a transformative leader inspires members to hold common visions and empowers each to achieve the ideas through offering the essential utilities to create their individual abilities (Bass, 1990). Fourth, a servant leader places the follower’s interest before theirs. Also, they focus on their follower’s development. Finally, circumstantial leaders employ suitable approaches to suit their precise circumstances or context that comprise one or several of the leadership styles discussed above (Leahy, 1997, pp. 447-471).
Servant and Transformational Administration
Transformative Management
Burns (1978) is credited with creating the notion of transformative administration. This leadership style is the shift from the traditional concepts of manager-centered hypothesis to the contemporary ideas of an action-centered hypothesis. Hence, although transformative management offers various innovative dimensions to the understanding of administration hypothesis, it is hierarchical in nature and remains leader-focused. The above analysis examines the contemporary aspects of transformative management in a four-facet form including idealized control, creative stimulation, individual attention, inspirational motivation (N. Smith et al., 2004, Bass, 1990).
Idealized Influence
A transformational leader is an internally driven visionary who can see past political exchange and technical competence (Quinn, 1985, pp. 73-84). Besides, Quinn insists that a transformative manager concentrates on a model whereby vision realization is the prime concern and follows a humane legal structure, gains authority from fundamental sets of morals, offers conduct intelligence, is action-learning driven, pass information through symbols to followers, and his strategies are complicated. Also, a transformational leader has an innate capacity to realign and adapt their views to the constant transitioning conditions. Such traits are vital and strong, as seen by community onlookers who most often turn into supporters.
In a rational point of view, a real transformative leader keeps a clear emphasis on their organizational positive moral duty (Burns, 1978). A transformative leader also has a greater emphasis on various cultural, ethical theories, which holds that a corporation has a moral responsibility to act in good faith toward its associates and without cases of abuse (Freeman, 1994). Regarding this moral and ethical act, a transformative leader holds that the organization has a noble mission to benefit its workers who are not associates (Greenwood, 2002). Thus, transformative managers put a significant focus on ethical and moral aspects to formulate choices that minimize the risk of harm to the associates and workers (Freeman, 1994). A transformative leader gains idealized control by being a role model, emphasizing on follower’s demands, and having moral and ethical construct.
Adorning Motivation
Transformational leaders influence institutional culture through personal attitude, decision making, modeling, and actions, which consequently, boost worker’s culture values and perceptions (Argyris, 1976, pp. 29-43). Thus, transformational managers make their decision in line with a Kantian Capitalism notion, which does not employ followers as a way of ending goal attainment (Lea, 2004, pp. 201). A transformational leader makes sure that their corporations don’t consider its workers as a way to gain without free and full consent (Greenwood, 2002).
The gains of ingenuity influence involve valuable conduct and traits in the institution’s taskforce such as confidence, caring, integrity, morals, meaning and honor (Ahmed & Machold, 2004). As transformational leaders “Walk the vision” of the honesty-driven management model, humanistic, every worker’s focus and commitment to the similar virtues are enhanced. As a result, the worker’s improved levels of morality and values heightens positively resulting in better attendance rates, greater job satisfaction, higher performance level, and higher spirit (Bass, 1999: Covey, 1991).
Legitimate power is another inspirational motivation embraced by transformational leaders. The leaders utilize legal authority launch and manage the transformation process. A transformational manager gains more legal power by the actively engaging to high standards of honesty, ethics and integrity, which is inculcated in the process by shared visions developed by the leader (Beatty & Brew, 2004, pp. 329-356). The institution’s culture views a transformative manager as one who has higher levels of identity, experience and competent in their field of specialization (Bass, 1999: Braga, 2002). Also, transformative managers plead to their employees through obvious passion and honest engagement to their visions which arises throughout the culture (Graham, 2006, pp. 11). It is this dedication, passion, and sincerity to their visions that offers the touching glamour to employees and boosts the social transformation affair towards affirmative results. A transformative manager gains inspiration through inspiring and motivating members, showing optimism and enthusiasm, shared visions and communication expectations.
Intellectual Stimulation
A transformational leader achieves intellectual stimulation by motivating their supporters' creativity and innovation. They are also ready to eliminate unprofitable systems and processes and embraces enormous risks for the profitability of the organizational (Smith et al., 2004). A transformative administrator develops an institutional mindset where all corporation members have a legal right to contribute to decisions that affect them, which favorably impacts intelligent stimulation (Burns, 1978).
Individualized Consideration
Transformational leaders attempt to understand worker’s culture notions and norms, views and values and how each affects productivity and performance throughout the change affair (Bass, 1990; Braga, 2002). Hence, efficient transition administration needs the knowledge of how the culture influences the employee. The knowledge helps transformational leaders to integrate employee emotional and mental participation into the institution's decision-making process and day-to-day operations. For accomplishing these tasks, a transformative manager is always ready to embrace a wider standard view that focuses on the actors and systems methods. These techniques introduce new concepts of thought regarding the duty organizational and individuals’ culture play in transition administration affair (Bass & Avolio, 1993, pp.112-122; Watters, 2006, pp. 18-19).
A traditional leader should start to query many institutional questions concerning role that their institution plays, why it is in existence, how it operates and how its crucial associates affected by the activities. Primarily, such issues concern the personalized interests essential in executing efficient transition administration initiatives. Examining such profound issues offers transformative leaders with the knowledge of using institutional history to implement good values regarding the institution's vision and mission into its taskforce. That's why transformative leaders focus their concentration toward follower’s and their growth and achievements by developing different studying avenues and empower the members to be involved in decision-making (Smith et al., 2004). Transformative manager’s emphasis on enhancing their members and integrating their potentials into each aspect of the institution transition administration processes.
Servant Management Model
In comparison to transformational leadership, servant leadership hasn’t gotten the same level of zeal. As a result, primary research is not broad in the area. Nevertheless, what manifests from the research of servant management is the development of a context-bound administration. The principles of servant management depend on influence and power. It stresses collaborative and collective member participation, emphasizes remarkable flower empowerment and promotes high levels of follower learning (Covey, 2006). In essence, servant administration seems to have originated from chaos and complex theory whereby management stresses collaboration, fragmentation, discernment, adaptability and flexibility of processes and structures, autonomy and participation (Wheatley, 2004). Further, servant leadership is analyzed from the view of cultural, individual, organizational and decision-making.
Personal perspective
A servant leader is different from a transformational leader considering the original definition of leadership. In this point of view, people’s manager trusts in supporters, serves follower’s wants and forgoes theirs, listens keenly to followers, is non-judgmental and receptive (Smith et al., 2004). If managers want to accomplish set goals, leaders should educate their faithful members to be leaders and at the same time be virtue members (Banutu-Gomez, 2004, pp. 143). Accordingly, a faithful member acts direction without optionally questioning the manager. Perfect supporters embrace initiatives, take charge of troubles and always contribute to the policy-making process. A servant manager's capacity to be a good leader and member motivates and inspires the followers. People's manager can see matters more clearly due to their honesty to emotional, mental, subconscious revelation and inspiration (Wheatley, 2004). Additionally, a servant leader keenly recruits perfect follower and accepts them to work hard, which boosts manager-worker faithfulness (Pepper, 2003, pp. 349). Furthermore, people's manager is always ready to forgo their needs for their followers, and embraces blame for contrary results (Rowe, 2003).
Artistic view
Effective servant leaders understand that members typically perceive change as terrifying due to the many uncertainties and choices accompanied when undertaking changes (Banutu-Gomez, 2004). Hence, various leaders’ emphasis on beating these fears by developing shared meaning throughout the institution. Ideally, servant leaders beat the inconsistency of training workers to be individualistic and utilize integrity while keeping a secondary position. Additionally, they challenge each employee to be sufficient through utilizing their spirit, knowledge, innovation, uniqueness and commitment (Banutu-Gomze, 2004, Rowe, 2003). People’s leaders maintain that supporters face their fear of a clashing with each other (Smith et al., 2004).
Decision-making perspective
True servants make resolutions that emphasize on changing their employees to achieve individual growth, but they forgo recognition and acknowledgment (Banutu-Gomez, 2004). By simply concentrating on their supporter's stake, servant leaders can develop a social and psychological contract with their employees that boost both intangible and tangible relationship with members (Covey, 2006). Servant leaders model the institutional visions through their behavior, decisions and actions in a consistent and visible manner. Such actions by a persons’ leader show interest for their supporter’s requirements and interest beyond and above their interests.
Organizational change perspective
The effectiveness of a servant or people’s manager is shown by the quality of their supporters (Washington, 2007, pp. 1-6). Therefore, it is vital to address the potential of faithful supporter. Throughout the institutional transition procedure, servant leaders envision the future, clarify goals, take initiatives, facilitate shared visions release and share power and promote others (Wheatley, 2004). Servant leaders strive to instill changes by developing an environment that adds worth to members or groups by enabling them to pay attention to vision, and take an initiative. Additionally, servant leaders strive to develop an enterprise whereby each follower is satisfied. Also, there is an emphasis on shifting the institutional culture toward one true followership. Moreover, servant leaders should install support and direction toward creating a workplace whereby followers’ inspiration is evident. For the servant managers to improve member abilities, they should concentrate on creating a training institution whereby each member can grow intellectually, develop additional expertise and learn new skills (Bantu-Gomez, 2004).
Comparative Analysis
Transformational and servant leaders compare in individualized control, intelligent stimulation, individualized attention, and adorning motivation. There several similarities between these two leadership models. Within the personalized influence view, both leaders’ models have appropriate behavior, serve follower needs, create a strong interpersonal relationship, maintain personal trust and integrity and are accountable and open to members (Antonakis & House, 2002). From the inspirational motivation perspective, servant, and transformational leaders believe in followers, clarify goals, envision the future and facilitate share visions (John Antonakis et al., 2004). From the intellectual point of view, both leaders affirm and encourage followers and take initiatives. Finally, within the personalized concern view, these leadership models offer avenues for member’s growth and learning, value supporters’ differences, collaborate with members and share power with their supporters (Antonakis & House, 2002). The overlap in traits shows major similarities between servant and transformative managers. Nevertheless, there are remarkable distinctions that influence how servant and transformational managers handle their organizational change and followers.
These distinctions have direct connections to change management. Transformative managers have a greater emphasis on intelligent stimulation as compared to servant managers. People's managers focus on improving follower’s individual abilities and enhancing their growth. Conversely, a transformative leader focuses on boosting worker’s creativity and innovation. Further, a servant leader puts greater focus on behaviors related to valuing persons at emotional levels. Transformative managers are ready to embrace risks to accomplish institutional gains while eliminating unprofitable systems and processes. Conversely, a servant manager only embraces risks following the initial strategic plan. Lastly, people's managers are always ready to forgo reward and advancement for the benefit of their supporters.
Conclusion
Smith, Montagne, and Kuzmenko (2004, pp. 80-91) argues that servant leaders, model results to "divine productive" culture while transformative management model results to "legitimate dynamic" culture. The two cultures are sufficient for directing the corporation in the environment of contrasting environmental dynamics. Mainly, "spiritual generative" perception leads to a latent internal culture, but it is rigid to outer changes since its egalitarian in nature. The outcome is credited to the people's manager chief inspiration to help and focus on boosting their supporter’s individual development and growth other than organizational success. On the other hand, "legitimate dynamic' affair is inspired by the perception of vision to pull through in a transitioning outer environment. The outcome is credited to the transformative manager's inspiration to guide and develop their supporter’s creativity and innovation with a focus on institutional gains. Thus, a transformative administration is useful in a changing condition while people's management is efficient in stable conditions. Conclusively, the transformative administrative is the perfect choice for growing followership and handling transition administration in a vibrant business environment.
Bibliography
Ahmed, P. K., and Machold, S. (2004). The Quality and Ethics Connection: Toward Virtuous Organizations. Total Quality Management, 15(4), pp. 527-545.
Argyris, C. (1976). Leadership, Learning, and Changing the Status Quo. Organizational Dynamics, 4(3), pp. 29-43.
Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., and Sternberg, R. J. (2004). The nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Antonakis, J., and House, R. J. (Eds.). (2002). The full-range leadership theory: The way forward (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: JAI - Elsevier Science.
Banutu-Gomez, M. B. (2004). Great leaders teach exemplary followership and serve as servant leaders. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 4(1/2), 143-151.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3).
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1).
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(1).
Bolin, L. A. (1997). Entrepreneurial leadership: New paradigm research discovering the common characteristics and traits of entrepreneurs who have served successfully in leadership positions. Unpublished Ph.D., Walden University, United States -- Minnesota.
Braga, D. M. (2002). Transformational leadership attributes as perceived by team members of knowledge networks. Unpublished Ed.D., Pepperdine University, United States --California. Beatty, B. R., and Brew, C. R. (2004). Trusting relationships and emotional epistemologies: a foundational leadership issue. School Leadership & Management, 24(3), 329-356.
Brown, M. E., and Treviao, L. K. (2003). The influence of leadership styles on unethical conduct in work groups. Academy of Management Proceedings, B1-B6.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Chalofsky, N. (2003). Meaningful work. T+D, 57(12), 52-58
Covey, S. R. (1991). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Summit Books
Covey, S.R. (2006). Servant leadership: Use your voice to serve others. Leadership Excellence, 23(12), pp. 5-6.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The Politics of Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly.
Graham, J. H. (2006). Purposeful Passion. Associations Now, 2(13), pp.11.
Greenwood, M. R. (2002). Ethics and HRM: A review and conceptual analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3).
Hoogh, A. d., Hartog, D. d., Koopman, P., Thierry, H., Berg, P. v. d., Weide, J. v. d., et al. (2004). Charismatic leadership, environmental dynamism, and performance. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology.
Lea, D. (2004). The imperfect nature of corporate responsibilities to stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), pp. 201.
Leahy, K. T. (1997). Entrepreneurial leader behavior: Personal versus situational effects. Unpublished Ph.D., California School of Professional Psychology - San Diego, United States -- California 3(4), pp. 447-471.
Mintzberg, H. (Ed.). (1990). Strategy formulation: Schools of thought. New York: Harper and Row.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc.
Quinn, J. B. (1985). Managing innovation: controlled chaos. Harvard Business Review, 63(3), pp. 73-84.
Pepper, A. (2003). Leading professionals: A science, a philosophy and a way of working. Journal of Change Management, 3(4), 349.
Rowe, R. (2003). Leaders as servants. New Zealand Management, 50(1).
Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., and Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies (Baker College), 10(4), 80-91.
Washington, R. R. (2007). Empirical relationships between theories of servant, transformational and transactional leadership. Academy of Management Proceedings, pp.1-6.
Watters, K. (2006).Thinking about leadership. Adults Learning, 18(3), 18-19.
Wheatley, M. (2004). Servant leaders. Executive Excellence, 21(7), pp. 15-16.
