TRANSACTIONAL, CHARISMATIC AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Argues for a new definition of the attributes and effects of leadership.

Transactional, Charismatic and Transformational Leadership:

Conditions Conducive to their Predominance
Micha Popper and Eliav Zakkai

the influence dynamic between the leader and his/her people. In reality the situation is much more complex. The context of the leader and the led in organizations is not monolithic but composed of varying levels of relationships, contact and situations. For example, there are people whose leader maintains direct and intensive, sometimes even daily, contact with them, and others whose leaders contact with them is distant, sometimes confined solely to eye contact. The exact significance of such points has not been sufficiently discussed in the literature (Shamir, 1991). In the present article we will attempt to show a more complex picture than that described in the literature, referring to the images and meanings of leadership for people in various organizational contexts and at varying levels of nearness in their relationships with the leader. Analysis in these terms enables us to relate to affective dimensions that have been discussed extensively in the literature dealing with charismatic and transformational leadership, and to expand the paradigm of leadership developed in contingency models, offering a more integrative view of the thinking that has evolved about leadership in organizations. Starting with a critical discussion of the literature, we will offer additional arguments to complete what appears to be missing in this context. Following this, we will suggest a conceptual framework for the characterization and mapping of the organizational psychological conditions that are likely to give rise to varying degrees of transactional, charismatic and transformational leadership which are the basic concepts of our discussion and of the proposed mapping.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, 1994, pp. 3-7 MCB University Press Limited, 0143-7739

The Leader and His/Her People

The American general, Dwight Eisenhower, once said that the essence of leadership is to make people do what you want them to with as much will, determination and enthusiasm as if they had decided for themselves. Indeed, most of the leadership literature appears to be guided by this orientation. Kotter (1990) claimed that leadership is getting people to act without coercion. Similar definitions have been offered by the most prominent writers on leadership (for example Bass, 1985; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Kouzes and Posner, 1989) and have served as the basis for research and application of leadership development programmes. Leadership literature deals mainly with questions such as: how does the leader influence his people? what are the sources of the leaders influence? what types of influence exist between the leader and his people? giving the impression that the leader is the only variable existing in The relationship between the leader and his/her people is described in the literature from two different perspectives (Shamir, 1991). One perspective describes the relationship between the leader and the led as a framework of exchange relations (Hollander, 1964). Leadership in this view is expressed in the leaders ability to make his or her people aware of a link between effort and reward. The effective leader, according to the criteria of this approach, is a sensitive psychological diagnostician who accurately discerns subordinates needs and expectations and responds to them accordingly. Many models have been developed (which generally appear in the literature under the heading of contingency models) in which the leader is described through the image of the transactional leader. For example, Hersey and Balanchard (1972) describe how the subordinates varying states of maturity dictate the way the leader can effectively relate to them. Fiedler (1967) speaks of variables such as the difficulty and

LEADERSHIP & ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL 15,6

complexity of the task. Reddin (1970) refers to variables such as organizational climate. Similarly, a long series of researchers add variables whose essence is the mapping of factors that influence the effectiveness of the motivational transaction between the leader and the led (see for example, Blake and Mouton, 1964; House, 1971; Vroom and Yetton, 1973). The second perspective describes the relationship between the leader and the led as essentially emotional. The leader in this perspective, who is described in the literature by images such as charismatic (House, 1971), visionary (Bennis and Nanus, 1985), and inspirational (Bass, 1985), is a person who arouses emotions in his people which motivate them to act beyond the framework of what may be described as exchange relations, of give and take (Bass, 1985). Writers discussing leadership in this perspective have attempted to describe the reasons, the processes and the characteristics of leaders who succeed in arousing emotions that are sometimes so powerful that people are even willing to sacrifice their lives for the leader. With some degree of generalization we can suggest several alternative and/or complementary psychological explanations for the emotional bond between the leader and the led (see Shamir, 1991). These explanations are examined below.

make mental attributions, that is, they navely and intuitively attribute assumptions of cause and result between factors existing in their surroundings (Kelley and Michela, 1980).

Leaders are figures to whom people attribute the ability to give meaning
With the help of these concepts of projection and attribution, we can describe three more types of explanation for the emotional bond between the leader and his people. The Projective Explanation The leader is his/her peoples projected being, he/she is the expression of their desires, and as such serves their ego expansion. By projecting on to the leader, the led can feel stronger, more successful, more competent. The Attribution Explanation The assumption underlying attributional explanations relevant to leadership is that ambiguous situations are too hard to bear. In this context, leadership as an attributional solution is an available and convenient response. People attribute to leaders knowledge of the goal, the direction, order of priorities; briefly, the ability to make sense of things in chaotic environments. Another explanation that can be seen as attributional (although not in the original research sense) relates to arguments proposed by psychologists such as Frankl (1963), that people have a basic need for meaning. According to this approach, leaders are figures to whom people attribute the ability to give meaning. Through the use of symbols, expressions that show vision, and behaviours of symbolic value, leaders serve as catalysts giving new meanings to their peoples feelings and actions.

Psychological Explanations for the Emotional Bond between the Leader and the Led
The Psychoanalytic Explanation: Transference Psychoanalytic theories claim that parents have a critical effect on their childrens psychic processes, particularly in the early years which are a formative period in personality development. Authority and its dynamics are major psychological factors that are expressed through the process of transference. In other words, most people (except in extreme pathological cases) have a deep-rooted longing and yearning for the feeling of the small child who was protected by big, strong authority figures, allowing him to live in safety while they took all the responsibility. According to this explanation there is a constant inherent longing for leadership, a longing which is regressive in nature. Leaders are authority figures, and thus objects of transference. Projective and Attributional Explanations The notions projection and attribution are close in terms of their explaining the significance of the leader to the led. Projection is, on the one hand, a psychological defence mechanism in case of negative emotions (the pot calling the kettle black) and, on the other, a way of expressing desires that the individual cannot for some reason fulfil in reality and so he or she projects them on to someone else. Attribution theories claim that individuals

Critical Discussion
The distinction between transactional leadership based on instrumental exchange relations and emotionrousing leadership rooted in processes of transference, attribution and projection calls for critical discussion. The focus of this discussion is the overly monolithic nature attributed to leaders influence on their people without sufficiently considering the influences of the psychological conditions resulting from the organizational context and the various levels in the hierarchy with which the leader is in contact.

TRANSACTIONAL, CHARISMATIC AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

The key concepts in this critical discussion are need and expectation. These concepts permit dynamic analysis of the leaders influences in his/her various spheres of activity. The point of departure for the discussion is the notion of hierarchy of needs as expressed in the theories of Maslow (1970) and Alderfer (1972). According to these theories the needs that motivate the individuals actions operate hierarchically in terms of their intensity and effect, with physiological and security needs at the bottom of the scale and, rising up the scales, the needs for belonging, esteem and self-actualization (Maslow, 1970) and development (Alderfer, 1972). This is relevant to our discussion on leadership in that people have different needs in different types of organizational contexts and at various levels of the organizations hierarchy, and thus will have different expectations of the leader.

The needs that motivate the individuals actions operate hierarchically

For example, the less secure people feel in the organization and the more anxiety they experience, the stronger the desire for leadership that can provide solutions of psychological security (see Zaleznik and Kets De Vries, 1975; Kets De Vries, 1989). On the other hand, when the need for security is satisfied the other needs grow stronger and the expectations directed towards the leaders change accordingly. This argument can be elucidated more precisely through the following organizational psychological contingencies: (1) In organizations and situations where people feel fairly secure psychologically, in other words where they do not feel that the situation is ambiguous and threatening and there are clear game rules for the participants, the dominant expectation will be for transactional relations with the leader. In these organizational circumstances, classic instrumental motivation theories such as VIE (Vroom, 1964) will be adequate to predict and explain the leaders influence and the effectiveness of the motivational transaction. Vroom argues that the motivation to perform an action is a function of the subordinates expectancies (E) multiplied by his view of the actions instrumentality (I); that is, the individuals subjective evaluation of the rewards he will receive for performing the action multiplied by the valence (V), the importance he attributes to the action. Hence, the more a leader is able to diagnose his peoples expectations what is important to

them and what they perceive as worthwhile the more effective his leadership is likely to be. (2) In organizations and situations where the individual does not feel sufficiently secure and there is a high level of anxiety, the dominant expectations will be for relief of the anxiety through relating emotionally to the leader (for example, in military combat units). In these situations mechanisms of projection, transference and attribution will work more powerfully and the expectation directed towards the leaders will be mainly emotional. The subordinates will expect their leaders to be strong, determined and protective. This analysis of how patterns of expectation are influenced by the extent to which a central need in the hierarchy of needs is satisfied is also pertinent to the distance between the leader and the led. Distance is another factor that affects the way people project and attribute qualities to their leaders. Ross and Anderson (1980) describe a phenomenon they define as the fundamental attribution error. This refers to peoples tendency to attribute to actors in a given situation more causality than the circumstances warrant. For example, Calder (1977) pointed out that many people tended to attribute to various presidents of the USA prime importance in changes that occurred in the American market, although these changes occurred very close to the presidents election and could not have been influenced by him. This argument is consistent with psychological approaches that describe the building of cognitions in the social sphere, and with approaches in interpretive sociology (Berger and Luckman, 1972). A fundamental assumption in these approaches is that the reality in which an individual lives and works is reality only as they perceive it. To introduce order into reality, the human consciousness creates categories and schemata. Leadership is the expression of a social schema that organizes the expectations attached to this role in a logical and consistent structure from the individuals point of view. In the absence of precise facts and details the individual will tend to complete the schema out of his or her needs and expectations. The greater the distance from the leader and the less knowledge and information possessed by the led, the more active will they be in completing the schema through attributions and projections. To use the terms of Ross and Anderson, the greater the distance from the leader, the stronger the tendency to make fundamental attribution errors; increased ambiguity and anxiety will strengthen these tendencies, and the leaders will become more and more a subjective creation of the led (Kets De Vries, 1989). On the other hand, the shorter the distance between the leader and his or her people, the greater the possibility of regular personal contact with the sources of influence, and in this case the subordinates perception will be more

LEADERSHIP & ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL 15,6

grounded in fact. The leader will be perceived as flesh and blood and not a projected figure. The leaders people will relate to him/her in a less attributional and projective manner, and hence the tendency for attribution errors will decrease. We can sum up with the generalization that the shorter the distance between the leader and the led, and the closer and more personal the contact, the more the leader will be seen, judged and evaluated by his/her people on what they are: their way of thinking, behaviour, professionalism, diagnostic ability, interpersonal sensitivity and so forth. Conversely, the more distant the leader from the led the greater the tendency to see, judge and evaluate him or her not on what he or she is but on what he or she is supposed to be in their fantasy, projection or schema.

contains a basic mechanism of exchange relations which becomes possible when there is no outstanding sense of impending threat or anxiety.

Charismatic Leadership
The growth and development of charismatic leadership in organizations is, in our view, related to the presence of circumstances which deviate from the organizational routine (mentioned as the basis for transactional leadership), circumstances connected with crisis situations or major changes. These situations are characterized by a high level of anxiety and uncertainty, intensifying processes of attribution, projection and transference and creating a strong psychological need for images of charismatic leaders. These psychological processes will be strengthened by the distance from the leader. The further the leader from the led, the more space for them to invent him or her and construct him or her as a product of attribution and projection not necessarily related to his/her real nature.

Leadership in Various Organizational Contexts and Hierarchies a Conceptual Framework

Let us clarify initially, in essence, the major conceptual distinction which has developed in recent years in the distinction between transactional, charismatic and transformational leadership. Transactional leadership is responsive and its basic orientation is dealing with present issues. The effective transactional leader is a master of give and take. He or she always responds intelligently on the basis of accurate diagnosis of the situational factors and the subordinates expectations within these situations. In short, he or she always makes motivational transactions with his/her people. Charismatic leadership is expressed through mechanisms of attribution, projection and transference. The leaders are images created by the led, who use the leader as a screen for their projections and attributions. Transformational leadership is proactive. This kind of leader sees the present as a springboard to achieve future aims. He or she forms new expectations in his or her people (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Eden, 1990) and sets empowerment processes in motion (Conger and Kannungo, 1987). Briefly, he or she relates mainly to his or her peoples developmental needs (Alderfer, 1972). These distinctions enable us to extend the contingency paradigm (presented by Reddin and others) and generalize it for a better understanding of leadership in various organizational and hierarchical contexts. The following are the main leadership contingencies relevant to our discussion.

Transformational Leadership
This leadership pattern is less affected than the other two by organizational circumstances and more dependent on the leaders perception of his or her role. However, nearness to the leader appears to be more conducive to transformational leadership (Kouzes and Posner, 1989; Shamir, 1991). Nearness to the leader (and his/her possession of the appropriate leadership qualities) lowers the level of anxiety and makes room to pay attention to the developmental needs of the led (Alderfer, 1972). These conditions provide fertile ground for leaders who perceive their role and themselves as transformational. The main contingencies in the context discussed here are summarized in Table I.

Conclusion
The above analysis indicates that the view of leadership in organizations presented in the literature is overly monolithic and deals mainly with leader-led relations without adequate diagnosis of organizational psychological contexts and their effect. This article offers an expanded view, the main claim of which is that analysis of leadership in organizations should relate to organizational psychological contexts, such as the hierarchy (namely, the distance from the leader), the leaders relationship with his/her superiors, the nature of the organizations tasks (routine versus change) and the conditions in which they function (stability versus crisis). All these affect the probable appearance of transactional, charismatic or trans-

Transactional Leadership
This is the pattern of leadership prevalent in most organizations and organizational situations because it

TRANSACTIONAL, CHARISMATIC AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Table I. Transactional, Charismatic and Transformational

Leadership and the Conditions Conducive to their Predominance Conditions conducive to the predominance of the leadership pattern Routine situations where the basic level of anxiety is not high, there is no acute sense of impending crisis or major changes Situations where there is a high anxiety level, conditions of crisis and change that intensify processes of projection, transference and attribution Situations where the basic level of anxiety is not high and attention is given to the developmental needs of the led. In general, this leadership pattern depends more on the leaders view of him/herself as transformational and less on the organizational context than do transactional and charismatic leadership

Leadership pattern Transactional

Charismatic

Transformational

formational patterns. The view presented here expands the paradigm of the contingency models (which were formulated in the framework of the exchange assumption which, as described, is at the basis of transactional leadership).

References Alderfer, C.P. (1972), Ex istence, Relatedness and Growth. Human Needs in Organizational Settings, The Free Press, New York, NY. Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Bass, B. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY. Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Berger, P.L. and Luckman, T. (1972), The Social Construction of Reality, Penguin Books, London.

Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The Managerial Grid, Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX. Calder, B. (1977), An Attribution Theory of Leadership, in Staw, B. and Salanick, R. (Eds), New Directions in Organizational Behavior, St. Clair Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 179-204. Conger, J.A. and Kannungo, R.N. (1987), Toward a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic Leadership in Organizational Settings, Academy of Management Review, 12 October, pp. 637-47. Eden, D. (1990), Pygmalion in Management, Lexington Books, New York, NY. Fiedler, F.E. (1967), A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness , McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Frankl, V.E. (1963), Mans Search for Meaning, Pocket Books, New York, NY. Hersey, P. and Balanchard, K.H. (1972), Management of Organizational Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Hollander, E.P. (1964), Leaders, Groups and Influence, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. House, R.J. (1971), A Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 321-8. Kelley, H.H. and Michela, J.L. (1980), Attribution Theory and Research, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 457501. Kets De Vries, M. (1989), Prisoners of Leadership, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Kotter, J. (1990), What Do Leaders Really Do?, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 103-11. Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1989), The Leadership Challenge, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Maslow, A.H. (1970), Motivation and Personality, 1st edition 1954, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Reddin, W.J. (1970), Managerial Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Ross, L. and Anderson, C. (1980), Shortcomings in the Attribution Process: On the Origins of Erroneous Social Assessments, in Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. and Slavic, P. (Eds), Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Shamir, B. (1991), The Charismatic Relationship: Alternative Explanations and Directions, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 81-104. Vroom, V.H. (1964), Words and Motivation, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.W. (1973), Leadership and Decision Making, Pittsburg, PA. Zaleznik, A. and Kets De Vries, M. (1975), Power and the Corporate Mind, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Micha Popper is an Organizational Consultant, Director of the Institute for Leadership Development in Management and a Lecturer in the Department of Labour Studies, Tel Aviv University, Israel; Eliav Zakkai is Head of the Research and Development Department, School for Leadership, Israel Defence Force.