The Best Leadership Model for Organizational Change Management: Transformational Verses Servant Leadership

By

Tim M. Lowder June 14, 2009

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1418796

Abstract The differences between the transformational and servant leadership models have significant implications concerning organizational change management. First, transformational leaders have a stronger focus on intellectual stimulation than servant leaders. Servant leader emphasize developing their followers’ personal potential and facilitating their personal growth whereas, transformational leaders emphasize enhancing employees’ innovation and creativity. This concept is important because it illustrates the servant leader’s focus on individual development and the transformational leader’s focus on organizational development. Second, servant leaders place greater emphasis on behaviors associated with valuing individuals at an emotional level and learning from others. Third, transformational leader are more willing to take risks to attain organizational success and eliminate ineffective processes and systems. The servant leader is willing to take initiative but only in the sense of initial strategic planning, new programs for added efficiency, and ultimate responsibility for the company’s success. The transformational leader’s focus on risk taking as an essential component of leadership is significantly greater than that of the servant leader. Fourth, the servant leader is more will to forsake self-advancement and rewards toward the betterment of followers. These differing attributes are analyzed in this paper to determine which model promises to be more effective in implementing organizational change management.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1418796

Introduction Schools of Thought As the paradigmatic framework of management research has evolved, leadership theory has also evolved. Many schools of management thought have emerged and each school added to the understanding of leadership and its relationship to strategy formulation during the change management process. Mintzberg (1990) presents an excellent illustration of the various seminal and contemporary management schools of thought and their related strategy process as they have developed. These schools of thought and their related strategy focus include : Design (conceptual), planning (formal), positioning (analytical), entrepreneurial (visionary), cognitive (mental), learning (emergent), political (power), cultural (ideological), environmental (passive), and configurational (episodic) (Mintzberg, 1990). The development and evolution in management theory during the past several decades is illustrated in the paradigmatic shifts from an analytical approach (design, planning, and positioning schools), to a systems approach (entrepreneurial, cognitive, learning, and political schools) to an actors approach (cultural, environmental, and configurational schools). Research Focus As mentioned earlier, the focus of scholars performing management research has significantly evolved and had an influence on developments in the leadership field. Based upon this shifting management paradigm, past research in the leadership field focused on universal leadership characteristics, examined power and authority, emphasized the study of individuals, focused on predicting behavior and outcomes, and was leader centered (Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-McGavin, 2006; B. N. Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004). Conversely, current research in the leadership field is context bound, focuses on mutual power and influence,

emphasizes collective and the collaborative relationships, promotes learning, empowerment, and change, and is process oriented (Kezar et al., 2006; B. N. Smith et al., 2004). This example illustrates the significant paradigmatic shift in leadership researcher. The paper will now address significant developments in research within the field of the leadership theory.

Evolution of Leadership Theory Trait Theory Trait theory emerged early during leadership research. Yet, understanding leadership traits is very important for determining the potential for effective leadership in organizations. Today's leaders face an extremely dynamic business environment where change is a constant issue. To effectively deal with change, followers must share the leader’s vision and be willing to commit to accomplishing the leader’s direction. The trait approach is still used to identify qualities of good leaders (Baum & Locke, 2004; Bolin, 1997; Northouse, 2007). Northouse (2007) provides a list of five traits that are critical for a leader to establish successful followership, which include “intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability” (p. 19). A leader must have the intelligence to identify changing environmental factors and possess the self-confident and determination to make significant organizational changes. The leader must also manifest a high level of integrity and be able to instill this integrity and values in others (Banutu-Gomez, 2004; Bennis, 1999). The sociability trait provides the leader the ability to create and enhance shared meaning and generate true followership. Next, style theory will be addressed which emerged as a complementary construct to trait theory to broader dimensions of leadership theory.

Style Theory In addition to trait theory, style theory provided an important contribution to leadership theory. First, many leaders still use the "authority-compliance" style which emphasizes task and job requirements and places little emphasis on people other than as resources for accomplishing the job (Northouse, 2007; Scott, Dornbusch, Busching, & Laing, 1967). In the long term, this leadership style lead to low morale and poor efficiency. Second, the “country club management style”, deemphasizes production processes and places high significance on inner relationships within the organization (Northouse, 2007; Yunxia, 2007). This leadership style results in high morale but a low level of production efficiency. Third, "impoverished management", involves using minimum effort to accomplish objectives or maintain worker satisfaction levels (Brown & Treviao, 2003; Northouse, 2007). This leadership style is very lax and results in mediocre morale, poor performance and lax ethical standards. Fourth, "team management", involves people working together through a common vision and a relationship of trust and respect between leadership and followers (Braga, 2002; Drew & Coulson-Thomas, 1996; Irani, Choudrie, Love, & Gunasekaran, 2002). Most often "team management" provides the highest level of worker satisfaction, morale, and production efficiencies (Chakraborty et al., 2004; Chalofsky, 2003; Quinn, 1985). Fifth and last, "middleof-the-road management", entails a balance of organizational performance and worker satisfaction (Northouse, 2007). On the surface, this leadership style may appear most effective because of its balanced approach but more often than not, leads to mediocrity and complacency in the workplace. Thus, each leadership style contains advantages and disadvantages. The next section addresses contemporary leadership approaches and their implications for followers during the change management process.

Contemporary Leadership Models Leadership Models Several distinctive leadership models have emerged including charismatic, transactional, transformational, servant, and situational. First, charismatic leaders exemplify extraordinarily powerful leadership characteristics that inspire and direct followers by building their commitment to a shared vision (Hoogh et al., 2004; Mannarelli, 2006). Second, transactional leaders engage in a process of social exchanges involving a number of reward-based transactions with followers (Avolio & Bass, 1999; Bass, 1990). Third, transformational leaders inspire followers to share a vision and empower them to attain the vision by providing the necessary resources to develop their full personal potential (Bass, 1990, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993). Fourth, servant leaders place their follower’s interest before their own, emphasize their follower’s personal development, and empower their followers (Banutu-Gomez, 2004; Covey, 2006; Rowe, 2003; M. Wheatley, 2004). Fifth and last, situational leaders use the most appropriate approach to match their particular situation and/or environment that can encompass one or more of the above mentioned leadership styles (Baum & Locke, 2004; Leahy, 1997; Weick, 2002). The analysis presented thus far demonstrates the significant diversity in the various approaches to and models of leadership. However, the remainder of the paper will focus on an analysis of transformational and servant leadership.

Transformational and Servant Leadership Transformational Leadership Burns (1978) is attributed with developing the concept of transformational leadership, or what he called transforming leadership. Transformational leadership is a transition from the

older views of leader-centered theory to the newer views of process-centered theory discussed earlier in the analysis. Thus, even though transformational leadership provides many new dimensions to the study of leadership theory, it remains leader-focused and is hierarchical in nature. The analysis evaluates the new considerations of transformational leadership within a four dimensional construct that includes idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1990, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1990, 1993; Bass, Jung, Avolio, & Berson, 2003; Bernard M. Bass & Paul Steidlmeier, 1999; B. N. Smith et al., 2004). Idealized influence. According to Quinn (1996), transformational leaders are internally driven visionaries who are able to “see beyond technical competence and political exchange” (p. 127). Additionally, Quinn states that the transformational leader focuses from a paradigm where the first priority is vision realization and behaves within a construct of a formal moral system, attains power from a core set of values, provides behavioral integrity, is self-authoring, communicates symbolically with cohorts, is action-learning driven, and whose strategies are highly complex (pp. 122 – 127). The transformational leader also possesses an innate ability to adapt and realign their perspective to the dynamics of an ever-changing environment. These characteristics are a tremendous strength, as perceived by outside observers who often become followers. From a humanistic perspective, the genuine transformational leader maintains a strong focus on their organization’s affirmative moral obligation (Avolio & Bass, 1999; Bass, 1990, 1999; Bernard M. Bass & Paul Steidlmeier, 1999; Burns, 1978; Manz & Sims, 1990; March, 1996; Tichy & McGill, 2003; Trevino, 1986). The transformational leader has a strong focus on social ethics theory, which premises that an organization has a positive moral obligation to do

“good” for all of its stakeholders and not harm them in any way (Bernard M. Bass & Paul Steidlmeier, 1999; Freeman, 1994). Also based on this ethical and moral construct, the transformational leader firmly believes the corporation has a moral obligation to do “good” for its employees who are non-owner stakeholders (Bernard M. Bass & Paul Steidlmeier, 1999; Greenwood, 2002). Hence, a transformational leader place significant emphasis on moral and ethical factors to make decisions that eliminate the potential for harm to its stakeholders, including employees (Bernard M. Bass & Paul Steidlmeier, 1999; Burns, 1978; Chakraborty et al., 2004; Chalofsky, 2003; Freeman, 1994; Greenwood, 2002). The transformational leader accomplishes idealized influence through role modeling, focusing on other’s needs, and high ethical and moral conduct (B. N. Smith et al., 2004). Inspirational motivation. A transformational leader influences organizational culture through actions, modeling, decision-making, and personal attitude, which in turn, positively enhances employee’s cultural perceptions and values (Argyris, 1976; Bass, 1990, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1990, 1993; Bass et al., 2003; Bernard M. Bass & Paul Steidlmeier, 1999; Bennis, 2004a, 2004b, 2006a). The transformational leader aligns their decision-making within a Kantian Capitalism perspective, which does not use people, individual employees, as a means to an end in goal attainment (Greenfield, 2004; Lea, 2004; McCormick, 2006; J. D. Smith, 2004). Transformational leaders ensure that their organizations do not regard its employees as a means to an ends without their full and free consent (Bass & Avolio, 1990, 1993; Bernard M. Bass & Paul Steidlmeier, 1999; Burns, 1978; Chakraborty et al., 2004; Greenwood, 2002; Salopek, 2004). The fruits of inspirational influence include virtuous behavior and characteristics within the organization’s workforce like trust, honesty, caring, ethics, honor, and meaning (Ahmed &

Machold, 2004; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Bernard M. Bass & Paul Steidlmeier, 1999; Chakraborty et al., 2004; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Lea, 2004; Tauber, 2005; J. Thomas Whetstone, 2003) . As the transformational leader “walks the talk” of their humanistic, virtue-driven leadership style, each employee’s commitment and focus to these same virtues are heightened. Consequently, the employees’ heighten level of values and virtues reinforces positive outcomes including greater job satisfaction, better attendance rates, higher productivity levels, and better morale (Bass, 1999; Beck, 2006; Chakraborty et al., 2004; Chalofsky, 2003; Covey, 1991; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Greenfield, 2004; Hamel, 2006; Jaffe, Scott, & Tobe, 1994; LaRue, 2006; Marques, 2005; Whitmore, 2004). Another component of inspirational motivation the transformational leader embraces is legitimate power. The leader uses legitimate power initiate and control the change process. The transformational leader attains a high level of legitimate power through their strong commitment to high levels of integrity, character, and ethics, which is instilled in the culture through a shared vision created by the leader (B. M. Bass & P. Steidlmeier, 1999; Bauers Joslin, 1996; Beatty & Brew, 2004; Khatri, 2005; Mannarelli, 2006; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). The organization’s culture perceives the transformational leader as having a high level of competence, identity, and experience in their area of expertise (Bass, 1990, 1999; Bennis, 2006a, 2006b; Braga, 2002; Verschoor, 2004). The transformational leader also appeals to their followers through a sincere commitment and obvious passion to their vision which emanates throughout the culture (B. M. Bass & P. Steidlmeier, 1999; Bennis, 2004a; Graham, 2006; Mannarelli, 2006; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). It is this sincerity, commitment, and passion to their vision that provides the pathetic appeal to followers and enhances the cultural change process toward a positive outcome. The transformational leader accomplishes inspirational motivation be motivating and inspiring

followers, displaying enthusiasm and optimism, and communication expectations and shared vision (B. N. Smith et al., 2004). Intellectual stimulation. To achieve intellectual stimulation, the transformational leader encourages their follower’s innovation and creativity, is willing to abandon useless processes and systems, and takes risks for long-term benefit organizational benefit (B. N. Smith et al., 2004). The transformational leader creates an organizational mindset that all organizational participants also have a legitimate right to participate in organizational decision making, which positively influences intellectual stimulation (Bass, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1990; Burns, 1978; Chakraborty et al., 2004; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Jue, 2004; Kaler, 2003; Lea, 2004; Stainer, 2004; Vaghefi & Huellmantel, 1998). Individualized consideration. A transformational leader attempts to understand employees’ cultural perceptions and their shared values, beliefs, and norms and how they affect performance and productivity during the change process (Bass, 1990, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Bauers Joslin, 1996; Beatty & Brew, 2004; Braga, 2002). Thus, effective change management requires a sound understanding of the culture’s influence on each employee. This understanding assists the transformational leader to integrate employee mental and emotional participation into the organization’s day-to-day operations and decision-making processes. To accomplish this task, the transformational leader is willing to adopt a broader paradigmatic perspective that emphasizes the systems and actors approaches. These approaches add new dimensions of understanding concerning the role individuals and organizational culture play in the change management process (Argyris, 1976; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Bernard M. Bass & Paul Steidlmeier, 1999; Black, 2002; Watters, 2006; Weick, 1987; Whitmore, 2004).

Transformational leaders must begin to ask many organizational questions that include what their organization does, how it functions, why it exists, and how are major stakeholders impacted by its actions? These questions deal with the individualized considerations necessary to implement an effective change management initiative. Asking these deeply rooted questions provides the transformational leader with an understanding of how to use organizational culture to instill positive values about the corporate mission and vision into its workforce. Then, the transformational leader focuses their attention on followers’ and their achievement and growth by creating new learning opportunities and empower them to make decisions (B. N. Smith et al., 2004). A transformational leader focuses on developing followers and incorporating their abilities into every aspects of the change management process. Servant Leadership Model Servant leadership has not received the same level of fervor as transformational leadership and consequently, the level of seminal research in the field is not as broad based. However, what becomes apparent from the study of servant leadership is its evolution toward a more context bound, process oriented theory. The essence of servant leadership hinges on greater mutual power and influence, emphasizes collective and collaborative follower participation, promotes high levels of follower learning, and emphasizes significant follower empowerment (Covey, 2006; Hamilton & Bean, 2005; Pepper, 2003; Rowe, 2003; B. N. Smith et al., 2004; M. Wheatley, 2004; J. T. Whetstone, 2002). Servant leadership appears to have established its roots in complexity and chaos theory in which leadership emphasize decentralization, differentiation of tasks, collaboration, flexibility and adaptability of structures and processes, participation, and autonomy (Laurie, 1999; M. Wheatley, 2004; M. J. Wheatley,

2006). Next, servant leadership is evaluated within the perspectives of individual, cultural, decision-making, and organizational change. Individual perspective. Servant leaders are different from transformational leaders as the researcher considers the traditional definition of leadership. From an individual perspective, the servant leader believes in people, serves other’s needs before their own, is receptive and non judgmental, listens intently to followers (B. N. Smith et al., 2004). Banutu-Gomez (2004) states that "to succeed, leaders must teach their followers not only how to lead: leadership, but more importantly, how to be a good follower: followership" (P. 143). Accordingly, a good follower is someone who can take direction without unnecessarily challenging the leader. Exemplary followers take initiative, assume ownership of problems, and participate actively in decisionmaking. The servant leader’s ability to be both a great follower and a great leader results in their inspiration and motivation of others. Servant leaders are able to see issues more clearly because of their openness to spiritual, emotional, and mental inspiration and revelation (Covey, 2006; Rowe, 2003; M. Wheatley, 2004). In addition, the servant leader actively recruits exemplary followers and is open to input from them, which enhances leader-follower trust (Banutu-Gomez, 2004; Pepper, 2003). Moreover, the servant leader is willing to sacrifice themselves out of love for others and in the face of difficulty willingly accepts fault for negative outcomes (Rowe, 2003; M. Wheatley, 2004). Cultural perspective. Within the cultural perspective, servant leaders provide opportunities for their followers to learn and grow, model appropriate behavior, provide encourage and affirmation (Covey, 2006; Hamilton & Bean, 2005; Rowe, 2003; B. N. Smith et al., 2004; Washington, 2007; M. Wheatley, 2004; J. T. Whetstone, 2002). Additionally, they develop strong relationships, collaborate with others, value others differences, are open and

accountable to others, are willing to learn from others, and maintain integrity and trust (Covey, 2006; Hamilton & Bean, 2005; Rowe, 2003; B. N. Smith et al., 2004; Washington, 2007; M. Wheatley, 2004; J. T. Whetstone, 2002). A servant leader willingly accepts the responsibility to contribute to cultural enhancement and places other’s well being above their own (B. N. Smith et al., 2004; M. Wheatley, 2004). A servant leader believes it is their responsibility to go beyond reminding followers of the rules and requirements and instead lead by example (Banutu-Gomez, 2004; Covey, 2006; Rowe, 2003; B. N. Smith et al., 2004). In doing so, it becomes the servant leader’s ultimate goal to help all employees to achieve more than just mutually acceptable goals or objectives toward the benefit of their followers (Banutu-Gomez, 2004; Covey, 2006; Rowe, 2003; B. N. Smith et al., 2004). Additionally, the servant leader sometimes strives to instill a mutual acceptance, understanding, and appreciation of a shared vision and/or goal (J. T. Whetstone, 2002). Moreover, the servant leader makes every effort to teach leadership to their followers (Banutu-Gomez, 2004; Covey, 2006; Garcia-Zamor, 2003). An effective servant leader understands that people typically find change terrifying because of the number of choices and the uncertainty involved in making the choices (BanutuGomez, 2004). Thus, the servant leader focuses on overcoming this fear through creating shared meaning throughout the organization. Banutu-Gomez (2004) states that "people need structure, order, and predictability to avoid a feeling of powerlessness in the organizational setting (p. 144). Thus, servant leaders are able to overcome the paradox of teaching employees to become independent and use critical thinking while maintaining their subordinate status. The servant leader’s key to overcoming this paradox in the organizational change process by challenging each person to become self-sufficient by tapping into their intelligence, spirit, creativity, commitment, and uniqueness (Banutu-Gomez, 2004; Covey, 2006; Rowe, 2003; M. Wheatley,

2004). Servant leader insists that followers confront their fear of conflict with one another in order to avoid the development of alienation (Rowe, 2003; B. N. Smith et al., 2004; M. Wheatley, 2004; J. T. Whetstone, 2002). Decision-making perspective. A true servant leader makes decisions that focus on transforming their followers toward personal greatness while sacrificing their own acknowledgement and recognition (Banutu-Gomez, 2004; Covey, 2006). By openly focusing on their follower’s best interest, the servant leader is able to create a psychological and social contract with their followers that enhance both tangible and intangible relationships with followers (Banutu-Gomez, 2004; Covey, 2006; Hamilton & Bean, 2005; Rowe, 2003; B. N. Smith et al., 2004; M. Wheatley, 2004; J. T. Whetstone, 2002). Banutu-Gomez (2004), states "the central role of the server leader is establishing sustainable strategic vision for the organization or community in a convincing and inspiring fashion" (p. 147). Hence, the servant leader models the organizational vision through their actions, behavior, and decisions in a visible and consistent manner (Banutu-Gomez, 2004; Covey, 2006; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Rowe, 2003; M. Wheatley, 2004). Servant leaders are able to inspire hope and encourage followers by adhering to their convictions, facilitating positive images, and by giving hope, love, and encouragement (Banutu-Gomez, 2004; J. T. Whetstone, 2002). These actions by servant leaders demonstrate concern for their follower’s needs and interests above and beyond their own selfinterest (B. N. Smith et al., 2004). Organizational change perspectives. The quality of their followers is a measure of an effective servant leader (Banutu-Gomez, 2004; Rowe, 2003; B. N. Smith et al., 2004; Washington, 2007). Hence, it is important to address the skills that are possessed by exemplary followers. During the organizational change process, a servant leader envisions the future, takes

initiative, clarifies goals, facilitates a shared vision, shares and releases power, shares status, and promotes others (B. N. Smith et al., 2004; M. Wheatley, 2004). The servant leader strives to implement change by creating a culture that can add value to groups and members by allowing them to focus on goals, take initiatives, and be who they are in group situations (Banutu-Gomez, 2004). Also, the servant leader makes every effort to create a workplace environment in which followers feel comfortable to be themselves. In addition, there is a focus on shifting the organizational culture toward one of exemplary followership that “has a sense of direction, drive, and intensity” (p. 145). Again, the servant leader must instill direction and support toward developing an environment in which follower motivation is self-evident. To develop follower skills, a servant leader must focus on developing a learning organization in which followers are allowed to learn new skills, grow intellectually, and develop additional expertise (BanutuGomez, 2004). Next, the similarities and differences between transformational leadership and servant leadership are established. Comparative Analysis At this point, the paper presents a comparative analysis of transformational and servant leadership using a framework presented earlier in the paper and includes individualized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (B. N. Smith et al., 2004). Some similar characteristics fall within two categories because they are important in multiple areas but vary in the degree of importance. First, within the individualized influence perspective, both leaders serve followers needs, model appropriate behavior, develop strong interpersonal relationships, are open and accountable to followers, and maintain personal integrity and trust (John Antonakis, Cianciolo, & Sternberg, 2004; J. Antonakis & House, 2002; Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; B. N. Smith et al., 2004). Second, within the inspirational

motivation perspective, both leaders possess a belief in followers, model appropriate behavior, develop strong interpersonal relationships, maintain personal integrity and trust, envision the future, clarify goals, and facilitates a shared vision (John Antonakis et al., 2004; J. Antonakis & House, 2002; Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; B. N. Smith et al., 2004). Third, within the intellectual stimulation perspective, both leaders encourage and affirm followers, and take initiative (John Antonakis et al., 2004; J. Antonakis & House, 2002; Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; B. N. Smith et al., 2004). Fourth and last, within the individualized consideration perspective, both leaders provide opportunities for followers learning and growth, collaborate with followers, value followers differences, and share power with followers and release control to followers (John Antonakis et al., 2004; J. Antonakis & House, 2002; Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; B. N. Smith et al., 2004). This illustration of overlapping characteristics demonstrates a tremendous similarity between the transformational and servant leader. However, there are significant differences that affect how transformational and servant leaders deal with followers and organizational change. The differences between the two leadership models have significant implications concerning change management. First, transformational leaders have a stronger focus on intellectual stimulation than servant leaders. Servant leader emphasize developing their followers’ personal potential and facilitating their personal growth whereas, transformational leaders emphasize enhancing employees’ innovation and creativity. This concept is important because it illustrates the servant leader’s focus on individual development and the transformational leader’s focus on organizational development. Second, servant leaders place greater emphasis on behaviors associated with valuing individuals at an emotional level and learning from others. Third, transformational leader are more willing to take risks to attain

organizational success and eliminate ineffective processes and systems. The servant leader is willing to take initiative but only in the sense of initial strategic planning, new programs for added efficiency, and ultimate responsibility for the company’s success. The transformational leader’s focus on risk taking as an essential component of leadership is significantly greater than that of the servant leader. Fourth, the servant leader is more will to forsake self-advancement and rewards toward the betterment of followers.

Conclusion It is argued by Smith, Montagne, and Kuzmenko (2004) that the servant leadership model leads to a “spiritual generative culture” and the transformational leadership model results in an “empowered dynamic culture” (p. 86). Both culture types are effective for effectively leading the organization within the context of differing environmental dynamics. The “spiritual generative culture” is egalitarian in nature and results in a passive internal culture that is resistant to external change. This result is attributable to the servant leader’s primary motivation to serve in addition to a greater emphasis on enhancing their follower’s personal growth and development than on organizational success (B. N. Smith et al., 2004). Conversely, the “empowered dynamic culture” is motivated by a sense of mission to survive in a dynamic ever-changing external environment (B. N. Smith et al., 2004). This result is attributable to the transformational leader’s motivation to lead in addition to developing their follower’s innovation and creativity with an emphasis on organizational success (B. N. Smith et al., 2004). Hence, transformational leadership is more effective in a dynamic environment and servant leadership is more effective in a static environment (B. N. Smith et al., 2004). In conclusion, the transformational leadership

model is the best alternative for developing followership and dealing with change management in today’s dynamic business environment.

References Ahmed, P. K., & Machold, S. (2004). The Quality and Ethics Connection: Toward Virtuous Organizations The Quality and Ethics Connection: Toward Virtuous Organizations. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 15(4), 527-545. Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). The nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (Eds.). (2002). The full-range leadership theory: The way forward (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: JAI - Elsevier Science. Argyris, C. (1976). Leadership, Learning, and Changing the Status Quo. Organizational Dynamics, 4(3), 29-43. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462. Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Amsterdam; New York: JAI, an imprint of 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), 19-31. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5), 21-27. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121. Bass, B. M., Jung, D. I., Avolio, B. J., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2). Bauers Joslin, S. J. (1996). Predicting transformational and transactional leadership behaviors from individual thinking and behaving preferences. Unpublished Ph.D., The University of Nebraska - Lincoln, United States -- Nebraska. Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587-598. Beatty, B. R., & Brew, C. R. (2004). Trusting relationships and emotional epistemologies: a foundational leadership issue. School Leadership & Management, 24(3), 329-356. Beck, N. (2006). Rationality and institutionalized expectations: The development of an organizational set of rules. Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR), 58(3), 279-300. Bennis, W. (1999). The end of leadership: Exemplary leadership is impossible without full inclusion, initiatives, and cooperation of followers. Organizational Dynamics, 28(1), 7179.

Bennis, W. (2004a). Courageous leaders. Executive Excellence, 21(10), 17-17. Bennis, W. (2004b). Leadership Paradox. CIO Insight (44), 35-36. Bennis, W. (2006a). Authentic Leaders. Leadership Excellence, 23(8), 3-4. Bennis, W. (2006b). Why lead? Leadership Excellence, 23(10), 4-5. Black, J. (2002). The cultural key to net gains. Business Week Online, N.PAG. 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. Brown, M. E., & 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. Chakraborty, S. K., Kurien, V., Singh, J., Athreya, M., Maira, A., Aga, A., et al. (2004). Management paradigms beyond profit maximization. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 29(3), 97-117. 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. Leadership Excellence, pp. 5-6, from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =true&db=buh&AN=23587489&site=ehost-live

Drew, S., & Coulson-Thomas, C. (1996). Transformation through teamwork: The path to the new. Management Decision, 34(1), 7. Freeman, R. E. (1994). The Politics of Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409421. Garcia-Zamor, J.-C. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 63(3), 355-363. Graham, J. H. (2006). Purposeful Passion. Associations Now, 2(13), 11-11. Greenfield, W. M. (2004). Attention to people and principles is key to corporate governance and ethics. Employment Relations Today, 30(4), 1. Greenwood, M. R. (2002). Ethics and HRM: A review and conceptual analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3), 261. Hamel, G. (2006). The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harvard Business Review, 84(2), 72-84. Hamilton, F., & Bean, C. J. (2005). The importance of context, beliefs, and values in leadership development. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(4), 336-347. 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, 13(4), 447-471. Irani, Z., Choudrie, J., Love, P., & Gunasekaran, A. (2002). Sustaining TQM through selfdirected work teams. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(5), 596.

Jaffe, D. T., Scott, C. D., & Tobe, G. R. (1994). Rekindling commitment : how to revitalize yourself, your work, and your organization (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Jue, A. L. (2004). Towards a taxonomy of spirit-centered leadership as reflected in phenomenological experiences of entrepreneurial leaders. Unpublished D.M., University of Phoenix, United States -- Arizona. Kaler, J. (2003). Differentiating stakeholder theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1), 71. Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the "L" word in higher education : The revolution in research on leadership. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass. Khatri, N. (2005). An alternative model of transformational leadership. Vision (09722629), 9(2), 19-26. LaRue, B. (2006). Developing Action Leaders. Leadership Excellence, 23(10), 9-9. Laurie, A. F. (1999). Why There's Nothing Wrong With Systems Thinking a Little Chaos Won't Fix? A Critique of Modern Systems Theory and the Practice of Organizational Change It Informs. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 12(3), 229. Lea, D. (2004). The imperfect nature of corporate responsibilities to stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 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. Mannarelli, T. (2006). Accounting for leadership: Charismatic, transformational leadership through reflection and self-awareness. Accountancy Ireland, 38(6), 46-48. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1990). Super-leadership. New York: Berkley.

March, J. G. (1996). Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 278-287. Marques, J. (2005). Yearning for a more spiritual workplace. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 7(1), 149-153. McCormick, M. (2006). The internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Metaphysics. Retrieved June 17, 2006, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm#H8 Mintzberg, H. (Ed.). (1990). Strategy formulation: Schools of thought. New York: Harper and Row. Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (Fourth ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Pepper, A. (2003). Leading professionals: A science, a philosophy and a way of working. Journal of Change Management, 3(4), 349. Quinn, J. B. (1985). Managing innovation: controlled chaos. Harvard Business Review, 63(3), 73-84. Rowe, R. (2003). Leaders as servants. New Zealand Management, 50(1), 24. Salopek, J. J. (2004). Engaging mind, body, and spirit at work. T+D, 58(11), 17-19. Scott, W. R., Dornbusch, S. M., Busching, B. C., & Laing, J. D. (1967). Organizational evaluation and authority. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 93. Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies (Baker College), 10(4), 80-91. Smith, J. D. (2004). A précis of a communicative theory of the firm. Business Ethics, 13(4), 317.

Stainer, L. (2004). Ethical dimensions of management decision-making. Strategic Change, 13(6), 333. Tauber, A. I. (2005). Thoreau's living ethics: Walden and the pursuit of virtue. Environmental Ethics, 27(4), 441-444. Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: Wiley. Tichy, N. M., & McGill, A. R. (2003). The ethical challenge: How to lead with unyielding integrity (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601. Vaghefi, M. R., & Huellmantel, A. B. (1998). Strategic leadership at General Electric. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 280. Verschoor, C. C. (2004). Integrity is a strategy for performance. Strategic Finance, 86(1), 15. Washington, R. R. (2007). Empirical relationships between theories of servant, transformational, and transactional leadership. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6. Watters, K. (2006). Thinking about leadership Thinking about leadership. Adults Learning, 18(3), 18-19. Weick, K. E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California Management Review, 29(2), 112. Weick, K. E. (2002). Leadership when events don't play by the rules. Reflections, 4(1), 30-32. Wheatley, M. (2004). Servant leaders. Executive Excellence, 21(7), 15-16. Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science : discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Whetstone, J. T. (2002). Personalism and moral leadership: The servant leader with a transforming vision. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4), 385-392. Whetstone, J. T. (2003). The Language of Managerial Excellence: Virtues as Understood and Applied. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(4), 343. Whitmore, J. (2004). Something really has to change: Change management as an imperative rather than a topic. Journal of Change Management, 4(1), 5-14. Yunxia, Z. (2007). Do cultural values shape employee receptivity to leadership styles? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(3), 89-90.