Transactional leadership

Last updated April 03, 2024

Transactional leadership (or transactional management) is a type of leadership style that focuses on the exchange of skills, knowledge, resources, or effort between leaders and their subordinates. This leadership style prioritizes individual interests and extrinsic motivation as means to obtain a desired outcome. It relies on a system of penalties and rewards to achieve short-term goals.

[Transactional] leadership occurs when one person takes the intitiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things. ... Their purposes are related, at least to the extent that the purposes stand within the bargaining process and can be advanced by maintaining that process. But beyond this the relationship does not go. The bargainers have no enduring purpose that holds them together.
— James MacGregor Burns, Leadership, (1978)

Transactional leadership is characterized by two primary factors: contingent rewards and management-by-exception. Contingent reward concerns the rewards that are granted in recognition of effort and good performance. Management-by-exception maintains the status quo, intervening only when subordinates do not meet acceptable performance levels or when corrective action is required to improve performance.

Burns' concept of leadership

Political scholar James MacGregor Burns first developed his typology of leadership in his 1978 book Leadership.^[2] He built on the work of German sociologist Max Weber's rational-legal model of authority in the context of organizational theory, conceptualizing leadership as a power-imbalanced social contract between leaders and subordinates, each of whom has specific goals that may be shared or unrelated.

Burns specifically defined and contrasted two dominant types of leadership style: transactional and transformational. He distinguished between the two by explaining that:

The object in [transactional leadership] is... a bargain to aid the individual interests of persons or groups going their separate ways. ... The premise of [transforming leadership] is that, whatever the separate interests persons might hold, they are presently or potentially united in the pursuit of "higher" goals, the realization of which is tested by the achievement of significant change that represents the collective or pooled interests of leaders and followers.
— James MacGregor Burns, Leadership, (1978)

Transformational leadership focuses on clear vision, collective benefits and long-term value. Transactional leadership focuses on short-term goals, bargaining and performance, taking the form of a task-oriented transaction.^[3]

Characteristics of transactional leadership

Transactional leadership is understood to possess two primary characteristics:

Contingent rewards. Leaders define expectations and identify appropriate rewards (e.g., bonuses, merits, or recognition). These rewards are given to subordinates on the condition that leadership expectations be met.
Management-by-exception . Leaders take discretionary actions as a response to (in)effective performance. Management-by-exception is exercised within a spectrum of two management subtypes: active management, in which leaders constantly survey subordinates to evaluate performance, anticipate problems, and course-correct before major problems occur; and passive management, wherein a leader assesses performance after the task has been completed and only once the problem is considered sufficiently serious.^[4]

The transactional leadership style is highly prevalent in modern society, and across many different contexts. For example, a political leader may wish to ensure voter loyalty; a social media influencer may desire to grow their followers; and a factory foreman may be charged with maintaining worker productivity. In all of these cases, transactional leadership can be thought of as a contractual relationship between a leader — who acts as a negotiator — and subordinates.

All transactions come at a cost. An effective transactional leader is able to identify the individualized needs of his or her subordinates, and will bargain with these needs in order to determine the necessary "price" to achieve a goal. In exchange, subordinates will expect their leader to reward them with appropriate compensation:^[4] for example, with tax cuts for voters, interesting content for social media followers, or salaries for factory workers. Transactional leadership depends upon transparency and fairness, but subordinates' well-being is not a primary concern for transactional leaders.^[5] Subordinates are paid in the exact terms of the (actual or metaphorical) contract; they "get what [they] deserve — no more, no less."^[5]

Transactional leaders prefer to work within the existing structure and the culture of the organization, opting to following precedent rather than implementing change. They emphasize practical and directive action, articulating specific measures of success with subordinates to focus group attention on the extrinsic motivators that are intended to guide their work behavior — as opposed to transformational leaders, who aim for their followers to achieve intrinsic motivation and job fulfillment.^[6]

Benefits and shortcomings

Transactional leaders have a fine-tuned understanding of workers' motivations and the effort necessary to reach a desired goal, and clearly communicate the terms of the conditional reward to their subordinates. Transactional leadership can therefore fail if leaders fail to fulfill their end of the exchange. This leadership style works best in a context of specific goals and short-term circumstances.^[7]

The benefits of an ideal form of transactional leadership include:

Rewards for individuals who are self-motivated and follow instructions
Rapid achievement of short-term goals/gratifications
Clearly defined rewards and penalties, with an emphasis on productivity
Streamlined structure: ideal for environments where structure and systems need to be reproduced (e.g., high volume manufacturing)
Alignment of ideals in large organizations
Emphasis on transparency and fairness

Disadvantages of transactional leadership include:

Rewards reserved for contributions that produce tangible or quantifiable outcomes
Dependant on short-term, extrinsic motivation
Lack of accommodation for individuals who innovate/demonstrate initiative (creativity is limited or non-existent)
Impersonal work environment
Little to no room for flexibility with goals and objectives
Focus on quantitative output and short-term, baseline performance rather than quality and longevity
Criticism only in the face of flailing performance results; little to no positive feedback

Compared with transformational leadership, transactional leadership seems to be better adapted at predicting specific job needs, while transformational leadership seems to be better for managing organizational behavior.^[8]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Within the context of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, transactional leadership works at the basic levels of need satisfaction, where transformational leaders focus on the lower levels of the hierarchy. Transactional leaders use an exchange model, with rewards being given for good work or positive outcomes. Conversely, people with this leadership style also can punish poor work or negative outcomes, until the problem is corrected.^[9] One way that transactional leadership focuses on lower level needs is by stressing specific task performance.^[10] Transactional leaders are effective in getting specific tasks completed by managing each portion individually.

Transactional leaders are concerned with processes rather than forward-thinking ideas. Transactional leaders are generally split into three dimensions: contingent reward, management-by-exception: active, and management-by-exception: passive.^[11] The type of leader who focuses on contingent reward, also known as contingent positive reinforcement, give rewards when the set goals are accomplished on-time, ahead of time, or to keep subordinates working at a good pace at different times throughout completion. Contingent rewards are also given when the employee engages in any desired behavior.^[11] Often, contingent punishments are handed down on a management-by-exception basis, in which the exception is something going wrong.^[12] Within management-by-exception, there are active and passive routes. Management-by-exception: active means that the leader continually monitors each subordinate's performance and takes immediate corrective action when something goes wrong.^[13] Management-by-exception: passive leaders do not monitor employee performance and wait for serious issues to come up before taking any corrective actions.^[13] In addition to the three dimensions of leadership above, another form of transactional leadership is recognized, the laissez-faire dimension. Laissez-faire leadership indicates a lack of leadership and a complete hands-off approach with employees.^[13]

With transactional leadership being applied to the lower-level needs and being more managerial in style, it is a foundation for transformational leadership which applies to higher-level needs.^[12]

Multifactor leadership assessment

The multifactor leadership assessment identifies factors in the test taker's leadership style that help identify transactional vs transformational leaders.^[14] Individuals who score above 6/12 on contingent reward and management by exception exhibit tendencies to manage using positive and negative reinforcement, transactional management strategies.

Theory Y and Theory X

Douglas McGregor's Theory Y and Theory X can also be compared with these two leadership styles. Theory X can be compared with Transactional Leadership where managers need to rule by fear and consequences. In this style and theory, negative behavior is punished and employees are motivated through incentives.^{[ citation needed ]}

Theory Y and Transformational Leadership are found to be similar, because the theory and style supports the idea that managers work to encourage their workers. Leaders assume the best of their employees. They believe them to be trusting, respectful, and self-motivated. The leaders help to supply the followers with tool they need to excel.^{[ citation needed ]}

Examples

Coaches of athletic teams provide one example of transactional leadership. These leaders motivate their followers by promoting the reward of winning the game.^[15] They instil such a high level of commitment that their followers are willing to risk pain and injury to obtain the results that the leader is asking for.

Another example of transactional leadership is former US Senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, and his ruthless style of accusing people of being Soviet spies during the Cold War. By punishing for deviation from the rules and rewarding followers for bringing him accused communist infiltrators, McCarthy promoted results among followers.^{[ citation needed ]} This leadership style is especially effective in crisis situations, and another example of this type of leadership was Charles de Gaulle. Through this type of reward and punishment he was able to become the leader of the free French in a crisis situation.^{[ citation needed ]}

Related Research Articles

Industrial and organizational psychology "focuses the lens of psychological science on a key aspect of human life, namely, their work lives. In general, the goals of I-O psychology are to better understand and optimize the effectiveness, health, and well-being of both individuals and organizations." It is an applied discipline within psychology and is an international profession. I-O psychology is also known as occupational psychology in the United Kingdom, organisational psychology in Australia and New Zealand, and work and organizational (WO) psychology throughout Europe and Brazil. Industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) psychology is the broader, more global term for the science and profession.

Leadership, both as a research area and as a practical skill, encompasses the ability of an individual, group, or organization to "lead", influence, or guide other individuals, teams, or entire organizations.

The path–goal theory, also known as the path–goal theory of leader effectiveness or the path–goal model, is a leadership theory developed by Robert House, an Ohio State University graduate, in 1971 and revised in 1996. The theory states that a leader's behavior is contingent to the satisfaction, motivation and performance of his or her subordinates. The revised version also argues that the leader engages in behaviors that complement subordinate's abilities and compensate for deficiencies. According to Robert House and John Antonakis, the task-oriented elements of the path–goal model can be classified as a form of instrumental leadership.

Theory X and Theory Y are theories of human work motivation and management. They were created by Douglas McGregor while he was working at the MIT Sloan School of Management in the 1950s, and developed further in the 1960s. McGregor's work was rooted in motivation theory alongside the works of Abraham Maslow, who created the hierarchy of needs. The two theories proposed by McGregor describe contrasting models of workforce motivation applied by managers in human resource management, organizational behavior, organizational communication and organizational development. Theory X explains the importance of heightened supervision, external rewards, and penalties, while Theory Y highlights the motivating role of job satisfaction and encourages workers to approach tasks without direct supervision. Management use of Theory X and Theory Y can affect employee motivation and productivity in different ways, and managers may choose to implement strategies from both theories into their practices.

Organizational behavior or organisational behaviour is the: "study of human behavior in organizational settings, the interface between human behavior and the organization, and the organization itself". Organizational behavioral research can be categorized in at least three ways:

In industrial and organizational psychology, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is a person's voluntary commitment within an organization or company that is not part of his or her contractual tasks. Organizational citizenship behavior has been studied since the late 1970s. Over the past three decades, interest in these behaviors has increased substantially.

Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership where a leader works with teams or followers beyond their immediate self-interests to identify needed change, creating a vision to guide the change through influence, inspiration, and executing the change in tandem with committed members of a group; This change in self-interests elevates the follower's levels of maturity and ideals, as well as their concerns for the achievement. It is an integral part of the Full Range Leadership Model. Transformational leadership is when leader behaviors influence followers and inspire them to perform beyond their perceived capabilities. Transformational leadership inspires people to achieve unexpected or remarkable results. It gives workers autonomy over specific jobs, as well as the authority to make decisions once they have been trained. This induces a positive change in the followers attitudes and the organization as a whole. Transformational leaders typically perform four distinct behaviors, also known as the four Is. These behaviors are inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

The leader–member exchange (LMX) theory is a relationship-based approach to leadership that focuses on the two-way (dyadic) relationship between leaders and followers.

Civic virtue is one of the five dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) identified in Dennis Organ's prominent 1988 definition of the construct. Originally, Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) first proposed two dimensions: altruism and general compliance. Later, Organ (1988) deconstructed the dimension of general compliance and added additional dimensions of OCB. This resulted in a five-factor model consisting of altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue.

Cross-cultural psychology attempts to understand how individuals of different cultures interact with each other. Along these lines, cross-cultural leadership has developed as a way to understand leaders who work in the newly globalized market. Today's international organizations require leaders who can adjust to different environments quickly and work with partners and employees of other cultures. It cannot be assumed that a manager who is successful in one country will be successful in another.

Substitutes for leadership theory is a leadership theory first developed by Steven Kerr and John M. Jermier and published in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance in December 1978.

An authoritarian leadership style is described as being as "leaders' behavior that asserts absolute authority and control over subordinates and [that] demands unquestionable obedience from subordinates." Such a leader has full control of the team, leaving low autonomy within the group. The group is expected to complete the tasks under very close supervision, while unlimited authority is self-bestowed by the leader. Subordinates' responses to the orders given are either punished or rewarded. A way that those that have authoritarian leadership behaviors tend to lean more on "...unilateral decision-making through the leader and strive to maintain the distance between the leader and his or her followers."

A leadership style is a leader's method of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. Various authors have proposed identifying many different leadership styles as exhibited by leaders in the political, business or other fields. Studies on leadership style are conducted in the military field, expressing an approach that stresses a holistic view of leadership, including how a leader's physical presence determines how others perceive that leader. The factors of physical presence in this context include military bearing, physical fitness, confidence, and resilience. A leader's conceptual abilities include agility, judgment, innovation, interpersonal tact, and domain knowledge. Leaders are characterized as individuals who have differential influence over the setting of goals, logistics for coordination, monitoring of effort, and rewards and punishment of group members. Domain knowledge encompasses tactical and technical knowledge as well as cultural and geopolitical awareness.

Work motivation is a person's internal disposition toward work. To further this, an incentive is the anticipated reward or aversive event available in the environment. While motivation can often be used as a tool to help predict behavior, it varies greatly among individuals and must often be combined with ability and environmental factors to actually influence behavior and performance. Results from a 2012 study, which examined age-related differences in work motivation, suggest a "shift in people's motives" rather than a general decline in motivation with age. That is, it seemed that older employees were less motivated by extrinsically related features of a job, but more by intrinsically rewarding job features. Work motivation is strongly influenced by certain cultural characteristics. Between countries with comparable levels of economic development, collectivist countries tend to have higher levels of work motivation than do countries that tend toward individualism. Similarly measured, higher levels of work motivation can be found in countries that exhibit a long versus a short-term orientation. Also, while national income is not itself a strong predictor of work motivation, indicators that describe a nation's economic strength and stability, such as life expectancy, are. Work motivation decreases as a nation's long-term economic strength increases. Currently work motivation research has explored motivation that may not be consciously driven. This method goal setting is referred to as goal priming.

Employee motivation is an intrinsic and internal drive to put forth the necessary effort and action towards work-related activities. It has been broadly defined as the "psychological forces that determine the direction of a person's behavior in an organisation, a person's level of effort and a person's level of persistence". Also, "Motivation can be thought of as the willingness to expend energy to achieve a goal or a reward. Motivation at work has been defined as 'the sum of the processes that influence the arousal, direction, and maintenance of behaviors relevant to work settings'." Motivated employees are essential to the success of an organization as motivated employees are generally more productive at the work place.

Innovation leadership is a philosophy and technique that combines different leadership styles to influence employees to produce creative ideas, products, and services. The key role in the practice of innovation leadership is the innovation leader. Dr. David Gliddon (2006) developed the competency model of innovation leaders and established the concept of innovation leadership at Penn State University.

Reward management is concerned with the formulation and implementation of strategies and policies that aim to reward people fairly, equitably and consistently in accordance with their value to the organization.

Public Service Motivation (PSM) is an attribute of government and non-governmental organization (NGO) employment that explains why individuals have a desire to serve the public and link their personal actions with the overall public interest. Understanding the theory and practice of PSM is important in determining the motivations of individuals who choose careers in the government and non-profit sectors despite the potential for more financially lucrative careers in the private sector.

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire(MLQ) is a psychological inventory consisting of 36 items pertaining to leadership styles and 9 items pertaining to leadership outcomes. The MLQ was constructed by Bruce J. Avolio and Bernard M. Bass with the goal to assess a full range of leadership styles. The MLQ is composed of 9 scales that measure three leadership styles: transformational leadership (5 scales), transactional leadership (2 scales), and passive/avoidant behavior (2 scales), and 3 scales that measure outcomes of leadership. The MLQ takes an average of 15 minutes to complete and can be administered to an individual or group. The MLQ can be used to differentiate effective and ineffective leaders at all organizational levels and has been validated across many cultures and types of organizations. It is used for leadership development and research.

The full range of leadership model (FRLM) is a general leadership theory focusing on the behavior of leaders towards the workforce in different work situations. The FRLM relates transactional and transformational leadership styles with laissez-faire leadership style.

References

↑ Downton, James V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the revolutionary process. Free Press.
↑ Burns, James MacGregor (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
↑ Bass, Bernard M. (2014). Transformational Leadership (2 ed.). Routledge. p. 5.
1 2 Bass, Bernard M; Avolio, Bruce J. (1993). "Transformational leadership and organizational culture". Public administration quarterly: 112–121.
1 2 Rowold, Jens; Schlotz, Wolff (2009). "Transformational and transactional leadership and followers' chronic stress". Leadership review. 9 (1): 35–48.
↑ Kuhnert, K. W.; Lewis, P. (1987). "Transactional and Transformational Leadership: A Constructive/Developmental Analysis". The Academy of Management Review. 12 (4): 648–57. doi:10.2307/258070. hdl: 11059/14462 .
↑ Bass, Bernard M. (1985). "Leadership: Good, better, best". Organizational dynamics. 13 (3): 26–40.
↑ Afsar, Bilal; Badir, Yuosre F.; Saeed, Bilal B.; Hafeez, Shakir (2017). "Transformational and transactional leadership and employee's entrepreneurial behavior in knowledge–intensive industries". The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 28 (2): 307–332.
↑ Bass, Bernard (2008). Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial Applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. pp. 50, 623.
↑ Hargis, Michael B.; John D. Wyatt; Chris Piotrowski (1 September 2011). "Developing Leaders: Examining the Role of Transactional and Transformational Leadership Across Contexts Business". Organization Development Journal. 29 (3): 51–66.
1 2 Aamodt, M. G. (2016). Industrial/organizational psychology: an applied approach (8,2). Australia: Cengage Learning.
1 2 Bass, Bernard (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York, NY: The Free Press. pp. 14, 121–124. ISBN 978-0-02-901810-1.
1 2 3 Bass, B.M. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership. Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
↑ Batista-Foguet, Joan Manuel (July 22, 2021). "Measuring leadership an assessment of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire". PLOS ONE. 16 (7): e0254329. Bibcode:2021PLoSO..1654329B. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254329 . PMC 8297756 . PMID 34293007.
↑ Carthen, Jason B. "War, Warrior Heroes, and the Advent of Transactional Leadership in Sports Antiquity". Archived from the original on 2012-03-16. Retrieved 2012-03-18.