A Critique of Transformational Leadership

Peter Gronn, Associate Professor of Education at the Graduate School of Monash University in Victoria, Australia, critiques the Transformational Leadership model as described by Bernard Bass (1985) and discusses the “significance and widespread appeal” of this leadership model. Gronn argues that the excitement over the transformational leader model is both “premature and even misplaced.” He explains his reasoning based on four components that he discusses in the article. One, after nearly twenty years of this model’s development by Bass, there are still “few empirically documented case examples of Transformational leaders.” Two, where there are documented cases, the data is derived “from an extraordinarily narrow methodological base.” Three, proponents of this model can only show a “causal connection between the exercise of Transformational leadership and desired organisational outcomes.” Four, it is unproven that Transformational leadership can be learned by others.

Gronn reports a distinction, of which he is concerned about, in the key differences between Transformational Leadership and Transactional Leadership. Based on his research of Bass, Avolio and Bryman (Transformational Leadership Model proponents) he describes the key differences between the two.

Transactional (TA) leadership “proves instrumental in bringing about” the expected results where the TA leader both “recognises the role the follower must play to attain the outcomes” and “recognises what the follower needs and clarifies how those needs will be fulfilled in exchange for the follower's satisfactory effort and performance.” He writes that TA leaders normally use control to manipulate the follower into doing what they need them to do. They do this by “positive inducement” or “contingent reinforcement” and by “management-by-exception” which basically means that leaders “intervene when something a follower does goes wrong.”

Transformational (TF) leadership on the other hand moves beyond the need to psychologically manipulate a follower based on punishment and reward, but rather, “arouses and elevates supposedly higher needs and stimulates personal growth.” TF leaders “attempt and succeed in raising” followers “to a greater awareness about the issues of consequence. This heightening of awareness requires a leader with vision, self-confidence, and inner strength to argue successfully for what he sees is right or good, not for what is popular or is acceptable according to the established wisdom of the time.” The result are internal changes for the follower and the leader and macro organizational changes across the board, versus more micro organizational changes and simply meeting the needs of an individual.

The rest of the article takes a look at the four key attributes of the Transformational leader model that Avolio and Bass call the “Four I’s.” They are: Inspirational Leadership, that basically describes ones charisma; Individualized Consideration, when the leader treats people as individuals according to what each person needs at any given time; Intellectual Stimulation, refers “to the leader's influence on followers' thinking and imagination;” and Idealized Influence, which describes the a point where followers identify and emulate the “leaders mission and vision.”

Ultimately Gronn’s attempt is to show the shortcomings of Transformational Leadership and argue that the data suggests this model is both unproven and a simple reaction to organizational needs for a “hero type” to come in and save the day.[i]

[i] Gronn, P. (1995). Greatness Re-Visited: The Current Obsession with Transformational Leadership. Leading and Managing 1(1), 14-27.