The term transformational leadership was first introduced by J.V. Downton in 1973 (Northouse, 2016).  Academic study in this area began in the early 1980’s, and the body of evidence has grown substantially.

As the name implies, transformational leadership transforms people, both the leader and the follower, by raising the level of morality and motivation (Northouse, 2016). There are many similarities between transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, and servant leadership (Northouse, 2016; Smith, Montagno, Kuzmenko, 2004) largely because of the positive relationship that develops between the leader and the follower and the resulting change in performance.  The following statement provides a succinct summary:  “Transformational leadership occurs when a leader inspires follower to share a vision, empowering them to achieve the vision and provides the resources necessary for developing their personal potential.”  (Smith et al., 2004)

Four factors are described by B.M. Bass (as cited in Northouse, 2016; Smith et al., 2004), referred to as the four “I’s”:  idealized influence (others want to follow the vision of the leader), inspirational motivation (inspiring others to higher expectations/standards), intellectual stimulation (stimulating creativity, innovation and risk), and individualized consideration (followers are supported in growth).  Work by other authors support and elaborate further on these factors.  Bennis and Nanus (as cited in Northouse, 2016) added four strategies that transformational leaders will use (vision, social architects, trust, creative deployment of self) and Kouzus and Posner’s work (as cited in Northouse, 2016) added five practices adopted by transformational leaders (model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, encourage the heart).

J. M. Burns proposed that an essential characteristic of transformational leaders is moral development. Without morals and values a leader would be considered pseudotransformational, using influence for self-centered agendas or goals (as cited in Northouse, 2016). Evidence suggests that transformational leaders are able to encourage the components of moral sensitivity and moral motivation in their followers, and this influence becomes greater over time (Mulla and Krishnan, 2011). Although there are many similarities between the transformational and servant leadership models evidence suggests that context determines which style of leadership will be more effective.  Transformational leadership should be selected in dynamic environments that require employees to be empowered to make decisions and encouraged to be innovative and take risks (Smith et al., 2004).  As a result, the life cycle of the organization also plays a factor in which style of leadership will be more effective, with transformational leadership being more valuable at the birth and decline phases of an organization’s life cycle (Smith et al., 2004).

There are several strengths inherent in the transformational model. It has been widely researched, has intuitive appeal, describes the interaction between leaders and followers and places a strong emphasis on the needs, values and morals of followers.  It also augments other approaches and there is enough evidence to assert that it is an effective style of leadership (Northouse, 2016).  There are weaknesses in that the framework lacks clarity, measurement tools may not be valid, and the concepts suggest a trait perspective so that the focus is on leaders who are elitist.  Other weaknesses are that there is no evidence that there is a causal association with improved outcomes, and it has the potential to be misused (Northouse, 2016).

One historical figure that appears to fit most of the criteria of transformational leadership is Winston Churchill during his first term as prime minister of England in the early 1940’s.  There can be no argument that he was leading in a dynamic external environment.  From the perspective of the Allies he raised the level of morality in others, and modeled authentic socialized leadership that was concerned with the common good (Northouse, 2016).  History tells us that Churchill was charismatic, people identified with him, and committed to his vision.  Churchill influenced men and women to take significant risks for the greater good, and in visits to the front line he was able to encourage followers to continue the fight.  In this way he demonstrated the first 3 “I’s” as described by Burns outlined above.  Individualized consideration, or meeting the needs of followers by supporting them to become fully actualized is the only factor that this writer is unable to provide a specific example for.  However, evidence also suggests that there is a risk of manipulation or narcissism with transformational leadership (Van Dierendonck, 2011) and history may suggest that this was one of Churchill’s shortcomings, therefore individualized consideration may be absent in his leadership.

Researchers have significantly advanced the understanding of transformational leadership since it was initially defined in 1973.  Various authors have proposed models that identify the traits, behaviours, factors, strategies, and practices of transformational leaders as well as the contexts in which this leadership style will be most effective.  There are many individuals who could be considered transformational leaders, and the historical record of Winston Churchill’s action and behaviour in the early 1940’s fits this criteria.  It is anticipated that further research will continue to add to the knowledge and understanding of this leadership model.

References

Mulla, Z.R. and Krishnan, V.R.  (2011). Transformational Leadership:  Do the Leaders Morals Matter, and Do the Follower’s Morals Change?  Journal of Human Values, 17(2), 129-143.  doi:  101177/097168581101700203

Northouse, P.G. (2016).  Leadership: Theory and Practice.  (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications, Inc.

Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N.  (2004).  Transformational and Servant Leadership:  Content and Contextual Comparisons.  Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91.

Van Dierendonck, D.  (2011).  Servant Leadership:  A Review and Synthesis.  Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228-1261.  doi:  10.1177/0149206310380462