LEADERSHIP STYLES

Leadership Styles

Leadership Styles

Introduction

Transformational leadership is an important contemporary theory of leadership. It is the one leadership style consistent with successful organizational change management. This paper discusses Improving Organizational Effectiveness through transformational leadeship that empowers employees and influences change in the organization's culture. It also provides a hypothetical discussion of how the four worldviews:

Post-positivism

Constructivism,

Advocacy Pragmatism

Participatory Pragmatism

Discussion

Burns argued that all leadership behavior is either transactional or transformational. Transactional behaviors are "largely oriented toward accomplishing the tasks at hand and at maintaining good relations with those working with the leader [exchanging promises of rewards for performance]." Burns says that this style doesn't work when the task require inspiring people to want to make a big change. (Bass 1994)

Transformational leadership refers to the process of influencing major changes in the attitudes and assumptions of organization members and building commitment for the organization's mission? objectives and strategies. Transformational leaders are those who bring about "change? innovation? and entrepreneurship." They are responsible for leading a corporate transformation that "recognizes the need for revitalization? creates a new vision? and institutionalizes change." Transformational leaders have the knack for inspiring their followers to want to make the change and to throw themselves into doing so. They attempt to raise the needs of followers and promote dramatic changes in individuals? groups? and organizations."

Post-positivism

The large body of work published by Evers and Lakomski falls within that philosophy of science and social science called “post-positivism” (see in particular? Evers and Lakomski? 1995). Like many of their fellow travelers (Phillips? 1987; Phillips and Burbules? 2000; Hoy and Miskel? 2000)? Evers and Lakomski take Sir Karl Popper as their inspiration. (Although interestingly? whereas Phillips employs Popperism to thoroughly reject the holism that would result from rabid coherentism (Phillips? 1976)? Evers and Lakomski apply a Popperesque argument to justify the same coherentism.)

In a move reminiscent of Popper's (1982)? Evers and Lakomski appear to accept the distinction between a first world of “things?” a second world of subjective experiences? and a third world of statements. Like Popper? they wish to collapse worlds two and three such that:

… we can put objective thoughts - that is theories - before us in such a way that we can criticize them and argue about them.

Evers along with Lakomski (2000) fulfill Popper's task additionally. And? like Popper? they wish to populate world three with:

… inmates other than statements … [such as] problems? and arguments? especially critical arguments. For ...