دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی یک مورد مخالف با رهبری تحول گرا: نمونه های تجربی از تاریخ سیاسی آسیای جنوبی - امرالد 2017

Abstract

Purpose – Transformational and transactional leadership have become a fascinating issue for research since the work of Burns (1978) and Bass (1990). The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the usefulness of the concept of transformational leadership using examples of political leadership from South Asia. It is argued that the construct of transformational leadership is practically non-existent. And, if the concept of transformational leadership exists, it cannot be specifically applied to the leaders who gain popularity and achieve their goals. It is also argued that positive and negative connotation with transformational and transactional leadership, respectively, is false. The popular leadership may be good for “one-point agenda,” but not necessarily transform the system. Design/methodology/approach – Qualitative methods, historical analysis, and discourse analysis have been employed to understand the leaders’ actions and behaviors. Findings – The discussion around the empirical examples show that the popular-successful leadership does not necessarily a transformational leadership even though the leadership achieves the goals. Originality/value – The popular or so-called transformational leadership may be good to achieve one-point agenda, but it may not bring the required change and fruitful results to all stakeholders if it is not backed by a transactional strategy. Future research may turn the attention in three directions: whether or not the achieved goals were transformational or transactional; evaluation of leaders’ behavior from the perspective of consequential leadership; and the role of transactional leaders in the growth and strengthening of micro and macro organizations.

Conclusion

The examples employed in this research question the concept of transformational leadership. The argument is that if these four world-renowned personalities cannot be transformational, the researchers must consider the veracity of the concept of transformational leadership, especially in relation to micro organizations. Viewing popular or successful leadership as transformational leadership has distorted the concept of transformational leadership. In this work, it has been argued that the popular or/and successful leaders are not necessarily transformational. A leadership that gains popularity under certain conditions may be useful for achieving a specific goal, but does not necessarily bring a paradigm shifting or lasting change in the norms and values, which is ultimately essential for transforming a system. Excessive popularity induces authoritarian tendency in leaders, which eventually weakens accountability and transparency in the system and hurts positive transformation.

The quoted examples were examples of popular-consequential leaders. They did indeed achieve their goals, which proved to be more transactional than transformational. Therefore, achieving goals should not be seen as sufficient to declare that someone is a transformational leader, rather outcomes of the achievement should be analyzed before attributing a style of leadership. It has been indicated a long time ago that goals can be accomplished by initiatingstructure type leaders, but aftermaths of achievement would be different (Likert, 1958) and this argument has been supported in contemporary research as well.

While measuring success or achievement, it is important to assess how the whole organization and its stakeholders have been influenced by it. So far, the achievements of the four leaders have hardly proved to be beneficial for the citizens of the three countries, except a small class of the society.