Transforming or transformational?

Reading Burns and Bass it is surprising to notice that although Bass claims to have further developed Burns’ model, he consistently uses the word “transformational” instead of “trans-forming”. Antonakis and House (2002:8) have also mentioned this observation, and Bryman (1993:97) credits Bass, together with Tichy and Devanna (1986), for the fact that today people generally rather talk about “transformational” than about “transforming” leadership. The big question though is, whether these two words really are synonyms or maybe regional lan-guage preferences and thus interchangeable. If they aren’t, and if their use rather stands for distinct interpretations, then an indiscriminate mixing of the terms would only serve to obscure underlying differences.

Burns and Bass themselves have given an indication of where the differences between them lie. In an interview Burns used both terms and stressed that in contrast to “transforma-tional leadership”, “transforming leadership is the term I use to emphasize the reciprocal relationship between leader and follower” (Bailey & Axelrod 2001:119). Bass (1985:20–22) has distanced himself on three points from Burns. The first one, their evaluation of TRANSACTION

-AL LEADERSHIP, has been explicated in the previous section. In the second point, the role of ethics in their models, their views have converged over the years. Bass originally had defined his model of TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP without ethical considerations, and Burns’ call for a leader to be a moral agent leading followers to higher moral grounds did not figure in Bass’

early concept (Ciulla 2004c:16). However, in later revisions Bass introduced the distinction between authentic transformational and pseudo-transformational leaders to account for the ethical questions that had arisen (Bass 1999:543, 549; Bass & Steidlmeier 1999; Boal & Hooij-berg 2000; Antonakis & House 2002:9; Bass & Riggio 2006:viii, 13-14; but he already considers pseudo-transformational behaviour a few years earlier [Bass 1990]).

On the third point they still differ. Bass says that he and his colleagues “added the

‘expansion of the followers’ portfolio of needs and wants’” (Bass 1985:20) to Burns’ original conception. At first sight this seems similar to Burns’ call for a focus on higher needs. How-ever, the defining questions are what these “higher needs” are or should be, and who defines them.

Khanin (2007) developed an elaborate framework (consisting of three dimensions—the main causes of leadership; purpose, stances, and methods of leadership; and objectives and aspirations—each with several subdivisions) to compare TRANSFORMING and TRANSFORMATION

-AL LEADERSHIP and specify their differences. This work is not concerned with the detailed distinctions Khanin extracted. Rather, since the focus is on an ethical appraisal, one aspect (“Direction”) of the subdimension “Leader-Follower Interface” within the “Main Causes Of Leadership” dimension shall be investigated further as something that has great ethical im-plications. “Direction” within Khanin’s framework refers to the kind of interaction between leader and followers favoured by a certain theory: Does interaction only happen in one direction or is it reciprocal?

For Burns this is not a question. Reciprocity—or more exactly: multi-directional inter-action—lies at the heart of his model. He even talks of the “Burns Paradox” as the difficulty to

“distinguish conceptually between leaders and followers” (Burns 2003:171). Through dialogue and mutual empowerment the roles become blurry as leaders and followers exchange places.

The Burns Paradox ultimately disappears if, instead of identifying indivi-dual actors simply as leaders or simply as followers, we see the whole process as a system in which the function of leadership is palpable and cen-tral but the actors move in and out of leader and follower roles. At this crucial point we are no longer seeing individual leaders; rather we see lead-ership as the basic process of social change, of causation in a community, an organisation, a nation—perhaps even the globe. (:185)¹¹⁵

“Transforming” stresses the process in which leader and followers find themselves.

Richard Couto locates this even in the grammatical difference of the two forms. “The adjec-tive form of a noun, transformation, modifies leadership and suggests a condition or a state.

This contrasts with the adjective form of a verb, transform, that suggests leadership as a process” (Couto 1995:104). In such a process something happens with and in the people who are transformed. According to Burns this is the leader as well as the led (Burns [1978]

2005:19–20; Khanin 2007:9), and the result of this process is equally valid and beneficial for both.

Leaders with relevant motives and goals of their own respond to followers’

needs and wants and goals in such a way as to meet those motivations and to bring changes consonant with those of both leaders and followers, and

with the values of both. (Burns [1978] 2005:41)

115 Burns does not refer directly to systems theory, but his thinking is very much in line with how Pinnow (2012), based on Niklas Luhmann, described the functioning of systems: elements of a system influencing each other, and the leader’s role being one where s/he would contribute to change by shaping the environment in such a way that favourable interactions could happen. A leader, acting from a higher logical level (and in Burns’ expectation also from a higher moral level) would enable followers to reflect on their situation and thus instigate second order change (Eriksson 2003:35)—transformation!

In this dialogue leaders need to be aware of the special dilemma in which they find themselves: the danger to impose their own goals and values instead of actually raising the followers’ own consciousnesses.

In contrast to this, “transformational” carries the connotation of an ability to change someone/something. Instead of attitudes and the process, methods and accomplishments are at the core. Bass stresses that it is important to him to take Burns’ approach a step further and investigate the actual behaviour of leaders: “The processes of vision articulation and choice are matters of moral concern, not just the consequences” (Bass & Steidlmeier 1999:186). But in this preoccupation with actions instead of “a process in which a leader participates” (Couto 1995:104) Burns’ principal concern gets lost: to enter into a dialogue enriching for both sides which “allows followers to realize their higher-order needs and thus initiate a process of self-growth and transformation” (Khanin 2007:10). Bass’ explanation of the new element which Burns had introduced into the leadership discussion by defining TRANSFORMING LEADERSHIP gives an indication of the lack of significance he puts on dialogue:

What differentiated Burns’ transforming leaders, he said, was that “they transformed their followers” (Bass 1993:375)—reciprocity has given way to uni-directional influence.¹¹⁶ And logically, the core agenda of leadership is redefined. Where Burns calls “for the protection and nourishing of happiness, for extending the opportunity to pursue happiness to all people, as the core agenda of transforming leadership” (Burns 2003:3), Bass’ transformational leader is expected to “induce second-order increases in effort“ (Bass 1985:31; see also Shamir 1991b:82). Burns’ goal is for leadership and subordinates to search together for solutions to the burning problems “facing their entire community” (Khanin 2007:22). Bass’ goal is to equip a leader with transformational methods which help him to motivate passive subordinates “to commit to a shared vision and goals for an organisation or unit” (Bass & Riggio 2006:4). If this

“shared vision” is defined without the element of dialogue, it is no longer mutual empower-ment that is the focus.¹¹⁷ “Higher needs” are no longer formulated to bring about social transformation, but rather to increase performance—meaning that the leader and his/her organisational goals should be made successful. Couto (1995:106) is concerned that either TRANSFORMING LEADERSHIP and the resulting deep social change gets idolised in such a way that it is no longer attainable for normal human beings or TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP is trivialized so that as many leaders as possible can have a claim to it. Both actions he does not

116 Smith and Peterson (1988) consider it a fundamental flaw of Bass’ measuring instrument, that the questions of the MLQ mainly measure a leader’s effect on followers, and that the results therefore cannot represent Burns’ conception of TRANSFORMING LEADERSHIP (in Bryman 1993:130).

117 In one place there was mention of a transformational leader “considering the needs of others over his or her own personal needs” (Bass & Avolio 1994:36). If this happens, however, without true dialogue, but rather by the leader defining for the followers what their needs are, then it still cannot be called empowerment. Instead it would need to be called patronising behaviour.

consider conducive to the development of leadership. The fact is that shifting from the con-cern for moral elevation to purely pragmatic questions as it is happening in TRANSFORMA

-TIONALLEADERSHIP (Yukl 2006:250) opens the door wide for the kinds of criticisms that will be evaluated in section 5.3.

Khanin (2007:12) points out that Burns has distanced himself in the last years from Bass and the increasingly universalistic claim of his theory as well as the strong orientation at management needs. Apart from their fundamentally different assessment of the compatibility of TRANSACTIONAL and TRANSFORMING/TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, Burns stresses that TRANSFORMING LEADERSHIP can never only be concerned with gaining influence over subordi-nates. For Khanin, the directions Burns’ and Bass’ models take are so distinct that he consid-ers them two different models, with Bass following Downton’s tradition:

Thus, the transactional-transformational paradigm essentially endorses Downton’s (1973) conception of transactional leadership as meting out of punishments and rewards, Downton’s view of inspirational leadership as invocation of symbolic meanings, and Downton’s approach to charismatic leadership as based on an idealized role model. (:15)

Even the characteristics Burns and Bass give their transforming/transformational leaders (see Table 7) are such as to confirm the incompatibility of their theories (:19, 21). The compa-rison in Table 7 mirrors the backgrounds of the two founders of the theories: Bass coming from the military, Burns coming from politics (:21). Khanin’s conclusion is that instead of considering Bass’ theory as universally relevant, these different backgrounds and outlooks should be respected and the models should be applied in different situations.

[Bass’] theory appears to be most applicable to situations in which leaders transfer ready-made knowledge to passive followers in organisations with high power distance, high uncertainty avoidance, and a strong performance orientation. Conversely, Burns’ (1978, 2003) approach emphasizing leader-follower collaboration, a Socratic method of knowledge generation, mutual quest for shared meanings, and stewardship orientation appears to be more relevant for political leadership and innovative management of creative organisations endorsing corporate social responsibility. (:23)

While this might be a practical answer, it evades the question of intention. For what reason does someone choose to be a transformational leader? Is it the leader’s inner desire to help followers reach higher moral levels (Burns in Bailey & Axelrod 2001:119)? Or, in Bass’

thinking, when should one even use transformational methods? In stable situations, transac-tional methods would be quite sufficient (Bass 1990:30). TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP would be necessary to make sure that an organisation could remain successful even in diffi-cult situations. What this means is that in Bass’ view “higher goals” for followers and the

Characteristics of leaders

Burns: Bass:

 Authenticity

 Self-awareness

 Sensibility toward needs of subordinates

 Focus on the community¹¹⁸

 Optimism

 Extreme self-confidence

 Adaptability

 Difference of opinion is encouraged (fosters creativity)

 Difference of opinion is a hindrance, unanimity is the goal

 Willingness to learn from followers  Transferring ready-made knowledge

 Low control  High control

Table 7: Characteristics of transforming versus transformational leaders

followers’ moral elevation are not worthwhile goals in themselves, but rather means to reach another end. Transformational methods are not applied for the people’s sake but for the sake of the organisation—a reason that in this writer’s opinion puts a big question mark behind the menschenbild the proponents hold and thus behind the moral foundation of the model.