Category: Article review

In the article “Transformational and Servant Leadership: Content and Contextual Comparisons” the authors Smith, Montagno and Kusmenko (2004) examine transformational and servant leadership theories, the degree to which they overlap and the contribution both theories have made to the general understanding of leadership.

Transformational and servant leadership are both rooted in the study of charismatic leadership (Smith et. al., 2004). Weber (cited by Smith et. Al., 2004)  described a charismatic leader as someone who “exercises power through followers’ identification with and belief in the leader’s personality (p. 81). A theoretical comparison of the two leadership theories resulted in the discovery of the following similarities with respect to charismatic leadership: the authors found that both types of leaders serve the needs of others and put their needs above their own; both leaders act as role models for the ideals they espouse; both seek to build interpersonal relationships and a sense of community with the followers; both leaders maintain interactions that are open and accountable to their followers, and both value maintaining integrity and trust in their relationships.

Despite their similarities however, the two types of leadership have significant differences. One area of limited overlap between the two was intellectual stimulation. Intellectual stimulation refers to a leader’s behavior that encourages followers’ creativity and stimulates innovative thinking (Smith et. al., 2004). Servant leaders focuses their attention exclusively on serving the followers and working to promote their personal development. The needs of the followers are prioritized over the needs of the organization (Smith et. al., 2004). Whereas transformational leadership concerns itself with transforming the organization into one that can thrive in challenging external environments (Smith et. al., 2004). According to the authors, the leader’s focus is on promoting creativity, risk-taking, innovation and high performance in the followers in order to promote the organization’s success.

Despite the fact that the two types of leaders have differing motives, I feel that there are other similarities in their characteristics not mentioned by the study’s authors. For example, both leaders work to build a sense of community. This involves valuing people, being receptive and non-judgmental in listening to their views and concerns, and promoting others.

The authors argued that each type of leadership had an optimal environment or context in which it would best thrive. They posited that servant leadership is best suited for a static environment conducive to followers’ personal growth. They argued that not-for-profit, volunteer and religious organizations as often operating in static environments, and thus best-suited for servant leadership. Transformational leadership, on the other hand, is better suited for dynamic environments. The authors also point out that one must also take into consideration the life cycle of the organization, as organizations require different types of leadership at different phases in their life cycle.

 

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.

The article “Transformational Leadership: Do the Leader’s Morals Matter and Do the Follower’s Morals Change?” is a quantitative study undertaken by Mulla and Krishnan (2011) in which they investigated (1) the impact that a transformational leader’s empathy and values had on their follower’s perception of transformational leadership, and (2) the impact that transformational leadership on follower’s empathy and values.

Mulla and Krishnan (2011) define moral development as an increased ability to understand, care about, and act upon the difference between right and wrong. The authors describe the components of moral development as moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation and moral character.

Moral sensitivity is described by Mulla and Krishnan as the ability to evaluate a situation and identify a moral problem. They describe moral judgment as the ability to formulate a plan that applies a relevant moral standard. Moral motivation is defined as the motivation to select a moral value above other values. Moral character is seen as the executing and implementing a moral course of action. Thus moral sensitivity and moral motivation refer to the ability to perceive and be motivated to select a moral standard but moral judgment and moral character involve the actual creation and implementation of a moral plan of action.

According to Burns (as cited by Mulla & Krishnan, 2011), “the crucial task of transformational leaders is to raise the awareness and consciousness of their followers to higher levels of conduct and morality” (p. 130). Their study found that there was a definite relationship between transformational leaders and their values. They also found a relationship between impact of transformational leadership on a follower’s moral sensitivity and moral motivation was greater for leader-follower pairs that existed over longer periods of time versus those that existed for short durations. Their findings show that transformational leaders can increase moral sensitivity in their followers when they maintain a relationship with the followers over a period of time.

 

Mulla, Z. R., Krishana, V. R. (2011). Transformational leadership: Do the leader’s morals matter and do the follower’s morals change? Journal of Human Values, 17(2) 129-143.