Introduction
Transformational leadership has been found to be more effective when compared to other types of leadership. There have been various researches that have been undertaken to show that transformational leadership is effective. Although this is the case, there is no substantive research that can be relied upon. This paper will assess the transformational leadership and its reliability in leadership. It is also in this paper that emphasis is laid on the fact that transformational leadership will also serve to activate agendas and inspire organizations not only with the vision of change but also with a capacity to sustain the desired change. For the last 20 years, the field of transformational leadership has undergone a lot of changes and metamorphosis. We state that transformational leadership entails the capacity to change, learn and gain managerial wisdom. Change is the order of the day in many organizations today. Leaders and employees are expected to be committed to continuous change in everything they do. It is the goal of every organization. It is still believed that change is the desired, inevitable and good regardless of the expenses incurred and the repercussions that will be seen in the organization. It is also believed that change must be achieved without the delivery of everyday processes affected. This implies that people in organizations are expected to change and perform well simultaneously. Transformational leadership is the norm of the day as leaders are expected to bring the direction for the desired changes. They are supposed to steer and lead the change that is so desired in an organization. They are supposed to manage for both change and stability.
Objectives
This paper will be guided by the following objectives:
Hypothesis
- Transformational leadership is an effective and reliable form of leadership that can be applied to any organization.
- Transformational leadership can be applied to any organization in any sector
Literature review
Different scholars have brought about arguments about certain theories. Fiedler (1967), for example argues that there is no leadership that can be said to be right and better than the other theory. He argues that the theory that is to be applied depends on the situation at that particular moment. He says that, when the time to do something is limited, it is necessary to use the autocratic style of leadership. He continues to argue that it is important if the leader has full information of how the project is to be done.
In contrast to this, Judy Rosener in a Harvard Business Review article argues that leadership styles are based on the gender. He says that leadership depends on the gender of the leader. There is transformational leadership which where the leaders involve the employees. It is this type of leadership that is likely to be adopted by women in leadership. Men are more likely to adopt the autocratic style of leadership than women. Edgar (1988) also argues that men are more likely to use power based on charisma than women.
The leading researchers on management, Liz Cook and Brian Rothwell of the Industrial Society did some research on the different perception of leadership basing on sex of the leader. They found out that the brain of man is pre-disposed to action, risk taking and looking for solution while that of women are set to look for dialogue, search for options and unbalanced discussion. These are primitive styles of leadership that were practiced in yesteryears.
There is also another aspect of leadership where culture also affects the style that is chosen. According to scholar Geert Hofstede (1980, 1991), there are cultures which are dominant in other countries than others. It is what is called “Power Distance”. The subjects in these countries accept the type of leadership that is imposed on them. They also accept the decisions that are made by their leaders in these countries and organizations.
This paper will therefore look at the aspects of leadership and come up with a model of what is to be used. At the end of the paper I will have given the reasons why I support the democratic type of leadership. Today, leaders should support democracy and not tyrannical leadership. It should be consultative.
References
Cook, L., & Rothwell, B. (2000). The leading sex.The Industrial Society. London.
Fidler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences. London: Sage, London.
Ray, G. (2006). Leadership. NY: Cengage Learning
Rosener, J. (1990). Ways men and women lead. Havard Business Review, 54(5), 119-125.
