INTRODUCTION
by Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
This article, then, attempts to identify and describe some of the elements of
"effectiveness" characteristic of these two orientations. In
the discussions that follow, relevant definitions, models and examples will be
emphasized, but the focus of attention will frequently be on thoughts congruous
to each orientation. Concerns for a unified perspective of leadership and
a model important to the development of such a perspective become the key focus
areas of the final section of this article. Discussions in this article
are subsumed under the following headings: (a) the characteristics of
transactional leadership; (b) the characteristics of transformational
leadership; and (c) toward a comprehensive view of leadership.
THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP
According to Hersey and Blanchard (1988), most managers "...agree that
leadership is the process of influencing the activities of an individual or a
group in efforts toward goal achievement in a given situation"
(p.86). This definition simply asserts that leadership frequently deals
with the instrumental or day to day management needs and transactions (i.e.
performance or job accountability, exchanging a favor, returning a request)
between the leader and the followers to achieve subunit goals (Sergiovanni and
Starratt, 1988). However, the process of effectively managing these
coping needs is subject to the leader's diagnostic ability and adaptability in
leadership style (Hersey and Blanchard, 1988). Hersey and Blanchard's model
of situational leadership is a popular and useful framework for understanding
and guiding transactions essential to continuous change.
Utilizing a four”‘quadrant format, they suggest that the "best"
leadership style is the one that matches the readiness level of the followers
or group. When the readiness level of the individual or group is low
(unable and unwilling or insecure), they recommend a leadership style that
calls for specific instructions and close supervision of performance.
This style is characterized by a high task and low relationship
orientation. As follower readiness increases or changes for a given
situation a more moderate mix of guidance (task) and supportive (relationship)
behavior in leader style is required. With extremely able (knowledgeable,
experienced, and motivated) followers, the appropriate style involves turning
over most of the responsibility for decisions and implementation. In any
event, the emphasis in this model calls for four appropriate shifts in leadership
style from telling to selling, participating and delegating, as follower or
group readiness increases.
In one important sense, Hersey and Blanchard's (1988) leadership model responds
to the immediate needs of skilled school leavers ready to join the labor
force. Having joined an organization, these school leavers find
themselves dated and out of touch with the reality of the business and
industrial world. Such a situation is serious for business managers, but
is more acute for industrial supervisors. In such an uncertain work
environment, vocational guidance and support (the telling to selling acts of
leadership) may require a high degree of clarity between supervisor and school
leaver(s) in defining tasks, and of precision in selecting the methods and
tools necessary to meet their job targets. The product thrusts associated
with these acts might be a shared perception by both supervisor and school
leaver(s) of present "realities" and desired "priorities",
directed toward eradication of greatest deficiencies and insecurities.
As time passes, the leadership acts (from participation to delegation) may
require a fairly predictable pattern of vocational guidance and support
influencing a special subclass of controlled successes which Peters (1978, p.5)
and others have called the "theory of the small win." This
pattern becomes evident as the worker gains in experience and as roles and
tasks become more coherent in form and nature. During this period,
supervisors would attend to the sensitive "use of praise and design of
positive reinforcement schemes" (Peters, 1978, p.11) for workers or teams
with the goal of reshaping perceptions, thereby manipulating the course of
interactions and outcomes congruent to the organization's eventual purpose.
Effective pattern shaping is further marked by consistency in developing and
supporting small, clear”‘cut outcomes coupled with frequency and variation in
praise or rewards ”‘ directed at moderate sized wins or completed actions in
the hoped for direction (Peters, 1978; Peters and Waterman, 1982).
Setting or designing new improvement goals with resultant changes in behavior
might serve as evidence of accepted proof of small new product thrusts about
directional progress.
In retrospect, changes in leadership style are inextricably bound up with
changes in the worker's (or groups) readiness level about directional progress
for a given situation. From the perspective of the industrial supervisor,
leadership is concerned with the systematic establishment and achievement of
small, clear”‘cut product thrusts and outcomes through the use of positive
reinforcement in task behavior (i.e., goal setting, structuring work) and in
relationship behaviors (i.e. praise”‘rewards, and socio-emotional support).
The remainder of this section deals with some of the mundane reinforcement
"tools" of transactional leadership at the institutional level.
The top manager or chief executive's ability to link "symbolic
behavior" (basic management behavior, verbal and non”‘verbal) and
"symbol manipulation" (providing behavioral cues to observers) with
settings for interaction (the location for their systematic use) is at the
heart of Peters (1978) case for getting things done at the institutional level.
Corporate leaders must go beyond merely communicating overt verbal behavior
about the meaning of the organization. They have to explicate meaning by
"taking what can be gotten in the way of action and shaping it ”‘
generally after the fact ”‘ into lasting commitment to a new strategic
direction" (Peters and Waterman, 1982, p.75). Rather than
proclaiming their intentions, corporate or executive leaders can
demonstrate institution building by being visible or noticeable to the
"watchers" they wish to influence (i.e., virtually everyone in the
organization they come into contact with). They can exercise control of
their symbolic actions by:
· touching
or ignoring certain topics in their presentation/decision review of
memorandum reports,
· allocating,
suddenly, more meeting time to a particular item on the agenda,
·
introducing genuine accountability approaches to follow”‘up, such as tracking
and noting the impact of changes in the minute”‘book, and
·
managing the use of their personal staff size, staff requirements, and probing
allowed (Peters, 1978).
Honesty, realism, and consistency embodied in symbolic actions of influence
accumulation impart the character of effectiveness. The absence or
violation of these conditions, "...especially if perceived as
intentional, automatically destroys the effectiveness of patterned symbolic
manipulation", asserts Peters (1978, p.14). This, in effect, is the
essence of symbolic behavior and symbol manipulation at the institutional
level. Actions precede attitudes (i.e., beliefs, policies, statements of
public disclosure) in this "Do, then tell" leadership model.
All too often, executives reverse the logic by treating proclamation of policy
and its implementation as synonymous (Peters and Waterman, 1982). In
short, their presence or absence and minor actions can reinforce or reduce in
force, value, or virulence the impact of corporate policies, and
procedures. Their symbolic frameworks both reflect their priorities and directions
they wish to pursue. They continuously channel their attention to some
activities and not to others to become unparalleled shapers and re-shapers of
attitudes and corporate expectations. Before long, the pattern watchers
become alert to the impact of the executives and their time consuming efforts
on each other that nudge the process or reorganization in the desired direction
(Peters, 1978).
THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
In the language of Bennis and Nanus (1985), transformative leadership requires
a reorientation of "conceptual arms." Vision, or the ability to
identify past analogies, synthesize these to the demands of the new situation
and, subsequently articulate a meaningful vision of the future, is the key competency
area embodied in their discussion of transformational leadership. Around
this competency, they have developed four leadership strategies which they
believe constitute effective leadership behavior. They are:
Strategy I: attention through vision
Strategy II: meaning through
communication
Strategy III: trust through positioning
Strategy IV: the deployment of self
through (1) positive self”‘regard and (2) the Wallenda factor
(pp.26”‘27).
In other words, effective leaders are capable of (1) creating and communicating
a realistic view of a desired state of affairs, (2) mobilizing the attention
and commitment of self and others toward institutionalizing this new vision,
(3) continuously integrating competing forces (internal and external) into a
single harmonious whole, and (4) fostering a learning organization that is open
to "testing" assumptions in the face of changing requirements to
sustain longevity. Similar single”‘element structural thrust focusers
(i.e., dominating value, culture) have been used by Peters and Waterman (1982)
and Peters (1978, p.15) for describing some of the more powerful high”‘impact
"...signals (or accumulations of symbols) of attention" toward
institutionalizing a new corporate vision.
While the foregoing authors' starting points may differ, they come to view
these high”‘impact focusers or competencies as vital transforming ingredients,
essential to any definition of excellence in commercial companies.
Accordingly, many commercial industries took steps to solidify this sense of
vocation for leadership ”‘ invoking corporate attention to leadership training
and human resource development programs on the assumption that these
competencies and associated skills can be learned (Bennis and Nanus, 1985,
p.27; Fiedler, 1979; Lippitt, 1979). Likewise, steps have been taken to
solidify the development of pre”‘service leadership programs and quality of
continuing in”‘service education activities of principals ”‘ (Sergiovanni and
Starratt, 1988, p.200; Snyder and Anderson, 1986, pp.21”‘23) which supply the
motive power for excellence in schooling. In either case, these new
developments signal fresh contributions to the study of excellence in leadership.
In retrospect, vision, dominating value and/or culture are thoughts congruous
to the nature of transformative leadership. These thoughts have been
labeled as high”‘impact focusers or competencies, because they are illustrative
of high”‘performing leaders in the best”‘run organizations, schools among
them. Accordingly, organizations have attempted to highlight the
acquisition of these competencies in their programmatic efforts.
TOWARD
A COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF LEADERSHIP
Two major orientations to leadership were presented, each providing a sliver of
insightful characteristics but each leaving the reader with an inadequate
picture of the whole. This feeling stems from a concerned awareness that
neither leadership orientation provides a synthesis of the elements necessary
to form a more comprehensive view. This concern is further demonstrated
by the number of requests to be informed more fully of a unified perspective,
yet one that still retains practical appeal. The comments quoted were selected
as typical of the feelings about this topic.
Bennis and Nanus (1985), in Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge,
affirm:
If there was ever a moment in history when a
comprehensive strategic view of leadership was needed, not just by a few
leaders in high office but by large numbers in every job, from the factory
floor to the executive suite, from a McDonald's fast-food franchise to a law
firm, this is certainly it (p.2).
Sergiovanni (1979), Professor, Educational Administration and Supervision,
University of Illinois points out:
That leadership effectiveness models....need to
exert a greater effort in capturing more fully the complexities of leadership
effectiveness, and....they need to help us better link the valuable instrumental
or managerial aspects of leadership...with the more substantive aspects of
leadership (p.394).
Huckaby (1980), Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, George Peabody College for
Teachers indicates that:
Approaches to leadership should be more comprehensive
than most of the current situational models, yet simple enough to be easily
understood and applied. A combination of elements from prominent
leadership models may be the answer (p.613).
More recently, Professors Sergiovanni and Starratt (1988) observed:
...one is left with the impression that we are
still lacking a comprehensive theory of leadership. Such a theory would
not only elaborate on the essential elements of leadership but would show the
psychological and logical relationships between the elements of leadership in
such a way that their organic relationships would be apparent (p.200).
Sergiovanni's (1984) hierarchical model of leadership forces, each of which
interpenetrates each other, is of particular importance to the development of
such a view. The model not only affords "technical",
"human", "educational", "symbolic" and
"cultural" leaders a place in the hierarchy, but also makes some
revealing assertions about their relationships to organizational excellence,
schools in particular.
The cultural and symbolic forces of leadership express those essential
meanings, values, and purposes of the school. They speak the vision in
imagery, metaphor, symbols; in ritual, songs, celebration; in purposing,
correcting, and modeling. The presence of these two forces are essential
to excellence "...though absence does not appear to negatively impact
routine competence" (Sergiovanni, 1984, p.12). The educational
force of leadership expresses those specifically educational (in”‘ and
out”‘of school) concerns whether they are framed in pedagogy or learning theory
terminology, in supervision, evaluation, and staff development, in curriculum
design/improvement or instructional program frameworks. It is an
essential force to routine competence; linked strongly to, though still not
sufficient in bringing about excellence. Absence of this force
"...results in ineffectiveness" (Sergiovanni, 1984, p.12). The human
and technical forces of leadership are "...generic and thus share
identical qualities with competent management and leadership wherever they are
expressed" (Sergiovanni, 1984, p.9) and are not unique to the school
enterprise. They are expressed in words and actions of caring, trust,
reconciliation, human potential and uniqueness via instrumental motivational
theories and conflict management; and in bringing the vision into reality in
and through sound management technologies (planning/ scheduling techniques),
contingency (situational) leadership theories and strategies and institutional
structures. The presence of these two forces are important to achieving
and maintaining optimum effectiveness (routine competence), though not
sufficient to bring about excellence. The absence of these forces results
in organizational ineffectiveness as well as poor morale.
Collectively, these forces provide educators and trainers with the requirements
of building a mosaic of realities that characterize the workplace and society at
large. To embrace the transformation of one at the expense of the other
can only strengthen the existing bifurcation between academic and vocational
education. Scoping a comprehensive curriculum in which vocational
education occupies an integral place is desperately needed (Osborne,
1983). Society has and still is committed to a wide range of basic
educational goals, and "our responsibility is to assure that our young
people have access to broad, comprehensive educational programs", concludes
one educationist (Goodlad, 1978, p.331). If we can embody this notion of
curriculum building with the mosaic of forces at hand ”‘ then future
discussions pertaining to a more comprehensive view of leadership can be more
deliberate.
About the Author
Ihor Cap is Program Development Coordinator with
Manitoba Competitiveness, Training and Trade, Industry and Workforce
Development, Apprenticeship Branch, Program Standards Unit. He holds
an Education Specialist degree and Ph.D. in Comprehensive Vocational Education
from the Florida State University and a Masters of Education in
Instructional Technology from the University of Manitoba. Ihor is also a Slavic
Studies graduate from the University of Ottawa and a member of the Ukrainian
Academy of Arts and Sciences in Canada. This article was written in
1990 as a graduate student attending the College of Education, Department
of Educational Leadership, The Florida State University and first published on the http:articlesandblogs.ezreklama.com website on March 11, 2008.
References
Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985).
Leaders: The strategies for taking charges. Harper and Row, New
York.
Burns, M. J. (1979). Two excerpts from
leadership, Educational Leadership. 36(6), March: 380”‘384.
Fiedler, E. F. (1979). Responses to Sergiovanni,
Educational Leadership. 36(6), March: 394”‘396.
Goodlad, I. J. (1978). Educational
Leadership: Toward the third era, Educational Leadership. 35(4),
January: 322”‘331.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, H. K. (1988).
Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources.
(5th ed.) Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Huckaby, O. W. (1980). Integrating style and
purpose in leadership, Educational Leadership. May: 613”‘616.
Lippitt, L. G. (1979). Responses to
Sergiovanni, Educational Leadership. 36(6),March:398”‘400.
Osborne, K. (1983). The place of vocational
education in a comprehensive curriculum. An address to the vocational education
teachers association of Manitoba, C.V.A./A.C.F.P. Journal. 19 (2), August:
21”‘28.
Peters, J. T. (1978). Symbols, patterns, and
settings: An optimistic case for getting things done, Organizational
Dynamics. Autumn: 3”‘22.
Peters, J. T. & Waterman, H. R. Jr.
(1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best”‘run
companies. Harper and Row, New York.
Sergiovanni, J. T. (1979). Is leadership the
next great training robbery? Educational Leadership. 36(6), March:
388”‘394.
Sergiovanni, J. T. (1984). Leadership and
excellence in schooling, Educational Leadership. February: 4”‘13.
Sergiovanni, J. T. & Starratt, J. R.
(1988). Supervision: Human perspectives. (4th ed.) McGraw”‘Hill,
New York.
Snyder, J. K., & Anderson,
H. R. (1986). Managing productive schools: Toward an ecology.
Academic Press College Division, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers,
Orlando,
Florida.
