Of the 35+ leadership theories in current circulation, transformational leadership is the one nearest and dearest to my heart due to its focus on leadership ethics. But transformational leadership is also the most misunderstood theory, because many fail to realize that it’s not just about having a charismatic leader or an altruistic vision statement.

Most leadership scholars consider James McGregor Burns to be the originator of transformational leadership, stemming from his authorship of the classic Leadership (1978). Burns actually used the term transforming leadership, which he succinctly characterized as “the capacity of leaders to tap the motives and moral development of followers or constituents in order to reach higher goals.”

Burns deemed transforming leadership to be the ultimate form of leadership, because it entailed the moral uplifting of followers, their resulting moral action, and creating a fundamentally ethical culture. Transformational leadership, therefore, is about leaders and followers making a connection that enhances the incentive, character, and visionary capacity of all concerned. Gandhi, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King are preeminent examples, as each raised the hopes, dreams, and intentions of an entire nation.

It’s fair to question whether this conception of leadership is really anything new under the sun—a 20th century phenomenon. Plato (2000) and Marcus Aurelius (2011), for example, set the same high standards for leaders of their times, and their clarion call for the moral development of leaders, and for leadership by example, was actually more vigorous than what Burns describes. Moreover, the vision and leadership of many religious, cultural, social change, and human rights movements throughout history were, by definition, transformational in nature. Moses was a transformational leader, if ever there was one.

What Transformation Leadership Is Not

Burns goes to great lengths to distinguish between transforming leadership and transactional leadership. The latter focuses on the type and quality of exchanges between leaders and followers. Most such interactions involve behavioral shaping through rewards and punishments, which is how business-as-usual gets done in industry and government. The basic transactional leadership factors are:

1. Contingent reward—followers efforts are exchanged for specific rewards or payoffs.
2. Management by exception—the efforts of constituents or followers are redirected through corrective criticism, negative feedback, and negative reinforcement.

Many popular leadership models and programs fit the description of transactional leadership including servant, authentic and situational leadership, so it can be effective (Gordon, 2001; Northouse, 2019).

It is important to note that the transforming leadership in Burns’ view always involves raising the morality and social service of the group or organization. This led Burns to apply the term pseudo-transformational leadership to leaders who are self-consumed, exploitive, and power oriented—or who have warped moral values, use scapegoating, and foster the belief that an in-group should succeed at the expense of an out-group. Adolf Hitler and a number of 21st-century authoritarian-oriented leaders come to mind.

The Evolution of Transformational Leadership

Historically, transformational leadership has often overlapped with charismatic leadership, especially when it comes to religious and social leaders such as Christ, Gandhi, and MLK. These were leaders who, above all, were on a moral mission—and whose very name and image became synonymous with the mission. Charismatic leaders aim to transform their followers’ self-concepts and further strive to link their identities to the collective identity of the organization or cause (House, 1976). This has led critics to charge that transformational leadership is too often contingent on leader charisma, tending it toward a heroic leadership bias with the potential for abuse of power and an elitist, anti-democratic stance.

Bass & Avolio (1990) went on to codify the defining factors of transformational leadership, a.k.a. The Four I’s:

All four of these transformational leadership factors have been proven to correlate positively with job satisfaction and work performance (Nemaniel & Keller, 2007).

Another key defining factor for transformational leadership is its aspirational orientation. Whereas transactional leadership urges followers to reach targeted goals and outcomes, transformative leadership inspires constituents to always to reach higher. Accomplishing more and better, and going beyond what is expected, are hallmarks of transformational leadership.

Contemporary Approaches to Transformational Leadership

Organization development experts Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus were pivotal in extending the premises of transformational leadership to organizations in general, including for-profit businesses (2003). They proposed that transforming leaders should create a clear vision of the future state of their organizations, one that is simple, understandable, beneficial, and energizing. This vision was to emerge out of the needs of the entire organization, not merely those of its leaders and stockholders.

Such transforming leaders also generate trust through clear, consistent communication and direction, while also engaging in the creative deployment of self that is typified by high positive self-regard. This brings to mind Burns’ famous declaration “That people can be lifted into their better selves is the secret of transforming leadership . . . (1978).”

Bennis and Nanus put an even stronger spin on the linkage between leadership and ethics:

“Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing.”

This statement suggests that leadership without a moral vision is not really leadership (2003). Indeed, Bennis and Nanus go on to blame the proliferation of MBA programs that turn out cookie-cutter managers for the inertia that characterizes most organizations today, which are over-managed and under-led. Such managers, they say, “. . . excel at the ability to handle the daily routine, but never question whether the routine is worth doing.”

The Leadership Challenge

In recent decades, Kouzes & Posner (2023) have refined and developed one of the foremost contemporary leadership models, which they call Exemplary Leadership. Though the authors never call their model transformational leadership, leadership scholars tend to classify it as such, and for good reason. The exemplary leader is urged to cultivate five practices and ten commitments:

The Five Practices and Ten Commitments of Exemplary Leadership*
Model the Way	1. Clarify values by finding your voice and affirming shared values. 2. Set the example by aligning actions with shared values.
Inspire a Shared Vision	3. Envision the future by imagining exciting and ennobling possibilities. 4. Enlist others in a common vision by appealing to shared aspirations.
Challenge the Process	5. Search for opportunities by seizing the initiative and looking outward for innovative ways to improve. 6. Experiment and take risks by consistently generating small wins and learning from experience.
Enable Others to Act	7. Foster collaboration by building trust and facilitating relationships. 8. Strengthen others by increasing self-determination and developing competence.
Encourage the Heart	9. Recognize contributions by showing appreciation for individual excellence. 10. Celebrate the values and victories by creating a spirit of community.

Echoes of transformational leadership resound in all five tenets. What makes exemplary leadership different from traditional transformational leadership theories is that Kouzes and Posner contend that these practices can be learned and practiced by anyone, not just those who are great, special, or charismatic.

What is certainly transformational about exemplary leadership is that its adherents intend to transcend self-interest for the sake of others. Employees are empowered to innovate and communicate, to create a vision, a focal point for transformation that creates a sense of identity and self-efficacy for followers. Ultimately, exemplary leadership empowers people to feel better about themselves and their contributions to the greater common good.

Where Transformational Leadership Stands Today

Transformational leadership has been widely researched since the 1970s, and most studies validate that it positively correlates with follower satisfaction, motivation, and performance (Northouse, 2019). It also is effective in a variety of organizational settings and situations. Today it is commonly accepted that leadership means providing a positive vision of the future and, as such, transformational leadership theory has left an indelible mark on strategy making as a discipline.

Though ethics in action have always been considered a cornerstone of effective leadership, it has not always been the case that leadership had, or was expected to have, a moral purpose or end. Transformational leadership is also unique in its attention to the needs and growth of followers, not merely to those of its leaders.

Some critics of transformational leadership question whether a for-profit business could ever qualify as having a moral calling. They argue that transformational leadership, in the purest sense, only applies in cultural, social, and political contexts where the calling to higher moral ground is untainted by the profit motive.

Perhaps this is why transformational leadership is hard to define in certain contexts. I for one have worked with many for-profit companies, especially in the medical and professional service sectors, that held forth lofty, aspirational vision statements that had a transformational tenor on the surface. One, for instance, proposed to cure cancer. Another claimed to exist in order to promote the greater wellbeing of its clients. These visions, however, did not call on organization members to change in any way, moral or otherwise. What’s more, all of these organizations’ strategic goals involved raising financial or technological performance, which is to say that the values in action were 100% transactional.

It may very well be that no form of leadership is purely transformational—though a great many are purely transactional. Still, it’s clear that a transformational leadership bent tends more often than not to raise organizational effectiveness. It may well be that a pragmatic, situational blend of transformational and transactional leadership can be a highly effective hybrid (Northouse, 2019).

Endnotes

• Aurelius, M. (2011). Meditations (Transl. Robin Hard). London, Oxford University Press.
• Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
• Bass, B. M., & Avolia, B. J. (1990). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (2003). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York: Collins Business Essentials.
• Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
• Gordon, T. (2001). Leader Effectiveness Training (L.E.T.): Proven skills for leading today’s business into tomorrow. New York: Perigee.
• Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2023). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations, 7th Ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Northouse, P. G. (2019). Transformational Leadership in Leadership: Theory and practice, 8th Ed. pp. 163-196. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
• Plato. (2000). The Republic. Trans. Tom Griffith. Ed. G. R. F. Ferrari. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.


• * Modified from Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2023). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations, 7th Ed. p. 14. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

The greatest truism about groups is that every group is unique. It’s only natural then for group processes, structure, and culture to vary from group to group as a function of the group’s tasks, stage of development, and membership. That said, there are several barometers of group effectiveness that seem to apply universally, and that correlate with group performance.

Read More

The study of small group behavior is a relatively modern development. It’s a sub-discipline of social psychology, which itself only gained recognition as a field distinct from sociology or psychology in the early 20th century.

Read More

Although Bruce W. Tuckman (1938-2016) was best known for his article “Developmental sequence in small groups,” published in 1965, his areas of academic expertise were educational research and educational psychology. Still, of all the models of group development ever proposed, Tuckman’s forming-storming-norming-performing remains the one most often referenced.

Read More

You don’t have to look far to find people who are skeptical, or even cynical, about team building. The irony is, when you ask them why, you soon discover they never participated in true team building at all.

Here’s why. According to organizational surveys, 78% of so-called team building efforts within companies who reported having tried it consisted of one-time events. The surveys also showed that department heads or managers with little or no training or expertise in developing teams typically led these events.

Read More