Compare Transactional and Transformational Leaders
Several ways can be used to lead a company. Such methods can broadly be divided into either transactional or transformative leadership. Transactional leadership focuses primarily on processes and control and thrives under a strict management structure. On the other hand, Răducan and Răducan (2014) illustrated that transformational leadership emphasizes on inspiring the subjects to follow and requires a high degree of communication, coordination, and cooperation. The critical difference between the two leadership styles is that whereas transactional leadership turns its attention to the way things are done, transformational leadership tends to stress how people can be motivated to perform actions. Transactional leadership would succeed mostly where rules are followed and hierarchy is adhered to. Furthermore, it is majorly accompanied by innovation. Transformational leadership is premised on what best the leader can do in a bid to achieve the maximum from the followers. The leader focuses on what is referred to as the four ‘I’ am including idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation in impacting the organization.
Transactional leadership solves problems as they arise. It is therefore regarded as a reactive form of leadership. On the contrary, transformational leadership is proactive and tends to address issues because they potentially cause problems. Whereas most transactional leaders would prefer working within their existing organizational culture, transformational leaders primarily emphasize the onset of new ideas which effectively revolutionize the corporate culture (Răducan, & Răducan, 2014). In comparing the two forms of leadership, it would also be essential to understanding how they appeal to the interest of different parties. Many scholars have agreed that transactional leaders develop the self-interest of employees, who go ahead to seek rewards that are only beneficial to them. On the other hand, transformational leaders appeal to the interests of the group and notions that promote organizational success. Rewards and punishments follow the traditional model in transactional leadership, and the organizational standards are referred to as the point of reference. On the contrary, leaders in the transformational philosophy would strive to achieve positive results from workers by involving them in projects which will ultimately result in an internal high-order system of reward.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Distinctions between Managers and Leaders
Both managers and leaders occupy positions of influence within any organizational structure. However, the significant differences emanate from how they visualize and execute plans within their respective areas of jurisdiction. Chiabrishvili and Chiabrishvili (2013) noted that leaders are mainly concerned with vision while managers focus on creating goals. Leaders find possibilities in every situation and subsequently inspire and engage their subjects into converting the visions into reality. Therefore, they activate people to be something better than whatever they currently are. On the other hand, managers focus on creating, measuring, and fulfilling the aims outlined in achieving the goals. They control various situations and parameters with a view of exceeding their objectives. Another distinction that comes between leaders and managers is that whereas the latter act as change agents, the former maintains the status quo.
Leaders do not fear to disrupt the current establishment and mainly rely on the power of innovation. Thus, leaders are embracers of change and understand that although things are working, there is a better way they could be bettered. Managers would instead stick to what works best for them. They can only engage in the process of refining systems in a bid to better the processes. More fundamentally, leaders are original and unique compared to managers who would thrive on mimicry and the act of copying competencies they learn from other managers. On the contrary, Chiabrishvili and Chiabrishvili (2013) asserted that leaders are usually comfortable in their zones and are flexible enough to do things in a way that is special to only them. Furthermore, leaders are always willing to take risks while managers fashion their roles to control these risks.
Three Components of the Leadership Skill Mix
The three components of the leadership mix include the human relations, conceptual, and technical skills. Starting with human relations, it involves the skills of interrelating positively with other individuals. The positive interrelationship with others must occur at different levels. Communication is regarded as one of the essential human relation skill that leaders must possess. Without the power of communication, nothing meaningful can be initiated. According to Stacey, (2012), the second skill in this category is referred to as the conceptual skill. It involves the ability to synchronize and inter-relate various concepts and pieces of information which might be unrelated or those which do not have a precise meaning at the moment. Therefore, the conceptual skills would help the manager to visualize the organization in its entirety and further ensure that they form meaningful relationships between concepts that might appear initially abstract.
Some of the ways in which conceptual skills could be improved including observation, attending of seminars, using problems as case studies, and reading about successful business ventures amongst others. The third type of skill that leaders must show includes the technical skills. They involve an individual's ability to perform a particular duty or activity. In a department, these skills might vary from one level to the other. The skills might also tend to vary as one progress towards top management position as such would be replaced by conceptual skills which would be required in advanced levels. Technical skills also include the knowledge and capabilities that leaders and managers need to perform specialized tasks successfully. As such, they can increasingly coordinate work, communicate efficiently, solve problems, and visualize the bigger picture. The technical skills can come in different nature including information technology, mechanical, and mathematical expertise amongst others (Stacey, 2012).
Down’s Four Styles of Leader Behavior
Down described four different styles of leadership that could be identified as climbers, conservers, zealots, and advocates. According to Down, climbers are ambitious people, who would stop at nothing until they achieve their goals. The only problem with climbers is the fact that they are an unethical group of people who would tend to use every opportunity that comes their way to further their careers. Climbers are therefore opportunist who might not care about the nature of damage they cause on others, so long as they achieve what is in the best interest of their ambitions. The second group of leaders is known as the conservers. One of the characteristics of the conservers is that they believe in a system of bureaucracy (Stacey, 2012). Here, different levels of leadership exist hence leading to varying levels of authority that might ultimately slow the leadership process. Most significant about this group of people is that they flourish in maintaining the status quo. As such, they do not see the need for change and would want to improve the current establishment or set of systems. Moreover, they are reluctant to show innovation, and as such, they can lag behind in the era of technological advancement.
The third group of people fronted by Down is the zealots. They are members of the organizations that show immense mission in whatever they do. Some also tend to conform to the goals and objectives of the organization which will be helpful for the ultimate growth of the company. Lastly, Stacey (2012) asserted that the advocates are those leaders who show great concern only to spheres or areas they have influence. They will only control a particular unit which they believe has something to do with their roles as leaders.
References
Chiabrishvili, K., & Chiabrishvili, N. (2013). Leadership vs. management. Grigol Robakidze University Academic Digest Business and Management , (1), 155-158.
Răducan, R., & Răducan, R. (2014). Leadership and management. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 149 , 808-812.
Stacey, R. (2012). Tools and techniques of leadership and management: Meeting the challenge of complexity . Routledge
