MODULE 5

SLIDE3
Transformational vs Transactional Leadership

Transformational Leadership

Leadership characterized by the ability to bring about significant change in

the followers and the organization.

Transactional Leadership

Leadership characterized when a transaction or exchange of some type is

accomplished between leaders & followers.

To answer why people follow others lets take a look at the main distinction in
leadership styles we discussed in Module1 but with a slightly different
explanation.

We talked about how some leaders focus on tasks to drive performance, so

let’s take that a step further and think of tasks not only in the job
description but in all levels of communication between leaders &
subordinates. We can change the name from ‘task’ to ‘transaction’ and
encapsulate the same principles for all leader-member exchanges. So
each interaction is seen as an agreement between two parties (leader-
subordinate) that must be agreed upon before onset, and evaluated upon
completion. So the idea of why people would follow a Transactional Leader
rests upon the communication, feedback and rewards we talked about
with Authoritarian Leadership.

What about Personal Leadership styles? Well instead of personal

relationships, let’s think about personal improvement. The concept of
Transformational Leadership is to connect with the subordinate in some
way that looks to improve the overall performance & competencies of
each individual. This sounds a lot like the Situational Leadership & Path
Goal theories which we discussed last week and it is. So does
Transformational Leadership encourage that subordinates following
leaders? The answer comes in how the connections are made with each
follower. Similar to Personal Leadership attributes the leader needs to
possess the ability to drive the change necessary. But how?

Well that’s what we are going to talk about for the rest of the module.
Attributes, theories and understanding of how Transactional
Leadership & Transformational Leadership have their place in
driving results and attracting group/team membership. Also what
leadership attributes and how subordinates relate to individual leaders
characteristics and values when deciding about conforming to individual
leader’s direction.

SLIDE4

Charismatic Leaders

Charismatic Leadership

Leaders who have the ability to inspire & motivate people to do more than
they would normally do, despite obstacles & personal sacrifice.

The word comes from Greek, meaning divine favor, as true charisma can
seem to be a gift of the gods.

Not all charismatic leaders are moral or ethical.

The first principle of understanding why people are attracted to

leaders is the attribute of Charisma.

As you can see above, Charisma is based on a Greek philosophy relating to

some sort of divine intervention. That leaders were born with certain traits
that make people want to follow them. These traits can be physical as well as
mental ‘gifts’. Many myths & legends focus on great feats or something
extraordinary from heroes who by their very nature are leaders.

Today we see charisma a little differently. We look at charisma as the

ability to inspire others to do more than they would normally do. If you look
at the two examples we have two dramatically different personalities both of
which at some time inspired extraordinary events or practices from the
people who followed them.

Neither Mother Theresa or Hitler were ‘born’ with these traits but rather
exposed to different events throughout their lifetimes and took advantage of
situational awareness to impact followers’ behaviour. In fact Hitler’s first
attempt at becoming the German Chancellor ended in failure. During his
imprisonment he changed his tactics and moved from a traditional ‘coup’
or military uprising and adapted to one of endearing himself to the most
Germans as possible but relating their hardships to his own. In fact the book
‘Mein Kampf’ which literally translates to ‘My Struggle’ became the
manifesto in which Hitler rallied ordinary German citizens to believe in a
better life.

So let’s think about charisma in terms of what we have already talked about
in previous modules…In group/Out groups. Not everyone gave away all of
their earthly possessions to follow Mother Theresa’s example to take care of
the poor. Nor did everyone rally behind Hitler’s beliefs in German superiority,
even in Germany. Charismatic leadership is not universal but the
principles and promises of the leaders are similar. Group membership has
rewards, those rewards are tied to how the individual subordinate relates
them to their own values & beliefs. The stronger you value and believe
in what the leader promotes, the more likely you are to be included
in their ingroup.

The cost for outgroup participation is also linked to individual member

decisions. The more severe the consequences for not aligning with leader
principles will also challenge the values & beliefs of subordinates. This is
where the charismatic advantage between our two examples heavily
rewards Hitler over Mother Theresa. Failing to align with Nazi policies &
practices could ‘cost’ more to the average German & other ethnic groups far
more than not participating in Mother Theresa’s work. (Although there are
arguments to be made about religious consequences).

So are people ‘hardwired’ or predisposed to follow people based on

charismatic traits? There is some evidence to suggest we are. That we look
for commonalities that we can attribute to charisma in leaders and make
decisions on those traits instead of consistent leadership attributes over time
and across different scenarios.

Here is a link that explains Charismatic Leadership using an experiment

conducted by Jon Antonakis (2015) in which he promotes the physical
attributes of a leader can lead to predictive results in subordinates.

[Link]

The basic concept is that kids could predict the winners of political
races simply by looking at photos of the candidates. So Antonakis
goes on to suggest that simple things like your face can affect whether
you’re hired and how much you’re going to earn. Selectors don’t realize to
what extent they’re biased by very little things. Here is a link to an interview
with Antonakis if you are interested to know more.

[Link]

SLIDE5
Charismatic Leadership Attributes

Charismatic power in leadership employs the use of charm to engage an

audience and gather a following

This slide expands on different charismatic attributes other than just

physical characteristics.
The box on the right are different situations or states that we can use to
compare whether leaders are charismatic or not. So not just physical but
psychological charisma can be measured.

What you see is that there is an inverse or competing relationship in the

attributes shown by Charismatic vs Non Charismatic Leaders.

Take for example ‘relation to the status quo’. Non charismatic leaders
maintain the status quo or current state where charismatic leaders look
to create change. This is the characteristic we have already talked about
with manager vs leader behaviours. This challenges the authoritarian
advantage for charisma.

We see examples of this dichotomy in many mainstream movies and stories.

The appointed ‘evil’ or ‘immoral’ leader such as a king is toppled by the
very attractive and morally justified hero and creates a ‘Hollywood’
ending or fairy tales are finished with lines such as ‘they all lived happily
ever after’.

So even from an early age we see examples of how society values

charisma when compared to the uncharismatic tendencies in leadership.

So how do Charismatic Leaders cement or strengthen their position…?

Next slide please

SLIDE6
Coalitional Leadership

Coalitional Leadership: Involves building a coalition or an alliance of

people who support the leader’s goals and can help influence others to
implement the leader’s decisions and achieve the goals.
Well let’s look at a different example of how charisma works to impact
followers.

This slide helps us explain specific leadership strategies that strengthens the
traditional beliefs of charisma.

The man in the hat is Vince Lombardi. Lombardi was a very successful
American football coach in the 1950’s & 60’s. His most famous achievements
were winning the first two Superbowls with the Green Bay Packers, in fact
the Superbowl trophy is still called the Lombardi Trophy today.

Physically, Lombardi didn’t embody the ‘Hollywood’ beauty that we see in

our heroes but he did have a charismatic way of communicating with his
players. Lombardi is one of the most quoted people of the 20 th century, in
fact there are multiple websites that list and try to explain his many quotes
like the one in the picture above.

Charisma wasn’t how Lombardi led however. Lombardi believed in

surrounding himself with people who were like minded and would
espouse his values. As you can see in the quote above he wasn’t looking
for divine intervention to win but rather a work ethic in his team to achieve
success.

In other words Lombardi was looking to find similar traits in his players
(subordinates) that he possessed. In doing so he formed a ‘coalition’ of
ingroup members that not only thought like him but promoted his goals,
values & beliefs to others as well. When everyone is saying and believing
the same story, the leadership message is broadcast through more people
than just Lombardi himself. In other words he created a ‘culture’ in which
certain people wanted to be included and others were dismissed.

Success strengthens the overall leadership vision as well, which

enables ‘buy in’ or the belief that the leaders is competent based on
results and can cause other’s to change their own beliefs or values to be
on the winning side.

So now we know that who people are doesn’t mean everyone will
follow but the combination of charismatic traits and ingroup
coalitions will determine the tendencies for people to follow
Traditional Leaders.

SLIDE7

The 20/60/20 Rule

Mapping Stakeholder Buy-in

So what are the general tendencies of group inclusion? In other words, if I
had 100 people on my team, what could I expect from them as their
leader?

Well what this slide says is that there are tendencies in groups. This is an
important thing to think about if you are a manager or supervisor who
inherits a team. For example if you were hired to manage a group or were
transferred from one branch to another a good rule to consider is the
20/60/20 Rule when assessing your team.

The 20/60/20 Rule is base on percentages and it states the following

• 20% of your team or stakeholders will support your leadership. The

figure on the right divides that even further and says 10% will support
you and 10% will go further and ‘champion’ you as the leader. This is
the number Lombardi was trying to increase by building a coalition.
The more people on his team who supported his vision for success, the
more likely he was to have success.

• 20% of the stakeholders will reject you as a leader. That they see the
position with contempt regardless of the attributes you hold. In the
figure on the right, the rejection manifests itself in refusing to change
or adapt to your leadership style.

• That leaves the remaining 60%. Lombardi focussed on this group. This
group hasn’t made their mind up yet. They are looking for reasons to
commit or reject the leader. Lombardi was successful in not only
turning this group into advocates by winning but looked to remove any
members in the rejection group. Winning worked as a catalyst to
attract the right types of personality.

What Lombardi and good coalitional leaders understand is that they have
the right and ability to take the normal distribution of 20/60/20 and shift it in
their favour. Remove the bottom 20 by creating an environment which
attracts the middle 60. Use the top 20 to help you by promoting and
championing your goals, values & beliefs.

Once the group values become the cost of membership, the leader creates
and environment that promotes ingroup values and punishes outgroup
values.

Easy to say and conceptualize but what tools do leaders possess to shift
these percentages?
SLIDE8

Power & Influence

Power Definition: The authority to change the behaviour of others and

make them do things that they might not do otherwise.

Influence Definition: The ability to alter other people’s perceptions of a

situation. Unlike power, influence makes use of positive language and subtle
behaviours to encourage the desired outcome.
So here we are on slide 8 and for the first time we talk about Power &
Influence

Power & Influence are the tools that all positions of leadership possess to
make subordinates comply and perform. Power & Influence are
dramatically different but also the same in many ways.

How? Well let’s start by looking at the definitions above.

Power is the Authority to make the subordinates do whatever behaviour

the leader requires. This can mean making the follower’s behaviour act in
some way in which the follower wouldn’t normally do and it is very similar to
the Authoritative Style we discussed in Module1.

There are different types of power and reasons why subordinates may
choose to alter their behaviour and we will discuss those further over the
next few slides but first let’s talk about Influence.

Influence differs from Power in that the leader alters the subordinate
behaviour by changing how the subordinate sees the task or what is being
asked of them. Instead of using authority, influence looks to explain why the
follower’s behaviour needs to change. Influence is usually associated with
asking instead of telling the follower. In other words the Influential Leader
partners in some way with the follower to reach the desired outcome or
results.

So if they are different how are they the same? Well simply put, Influence is a
form of Power. An effective leader understands when to use influence vs
traditional power tactics. So as we go through the next slides, keep in
mind that when we talk about the types of power we will associate leader
behaviour with more authoritative examples and others will be more
influential uses of power.

Finally we will think about the use of Politics when Influencing others.

SLIDE9

Sources of Leadership Power (French & Raven, 1959)

5 Types of Leadership Power

So as you see in the figures above, two researches, Raven & French looked
to define Power based upon the same divisions in leadership behaviour we
saw with the Ohio State & Michigan studies.
French & Raven looked to what type of Power (Authoritative Or
Personal) would be used based upon personal leadership traits (attributes)
and what situations.

They identified 5 Types of Leadership Power based on two

dimensions.

The Authoritative or Position Power Types

1. Legitimate Power: Your job title entitles you to wield power

2. Reward Power: You control the rewards for your subordinates including
raises, promotions, bonuses, etc…

3. Coercive Power: You control the penalties of your subordinates

including termination. This is also called ‘Motivating by Fear’

The Influential or Personal Types

4. Expert Power: That you can perform the competencies required from
your subordinates and the leader’s job description. This can be very
influential as you won’t be asking your team to perform tasks that you
can’t do yourself. Also useful as an indicator of associate performance
as you don’t accept false excuses.

5. Referent Power: Well here is charisma and coalition. That the leader
surrounds themselves with those who respect and trust them. The
same principles of charisma and coalition discussed earlier.

So as you can see there are many different types of power that a leader can
yield but how will you know what type causes the change in subordinate
behaviour? You may think you have a relationship with a subordinate based
on trust and mutual respect whereas the truth is they are just afraid you may
fire them.

Very similar to when I get emails that start with Dear Valued Professor, I
would like to think it is due to you being engaged and energetic students
where you may just be trying to Influence my behaviour and give you better
grades.

HERE IS THE FIRST IMPORTANT PRACTICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN

POWER & INFLUENCE: SUBORDINATES CAN INFLUENCE LEADER
BEHAVIOUR. In other words leadership principles are not exclusive to senior
leaders, managers & supervisors. In fact anyone can use the Power of
Influence to try and change behaviours of all levels within an organization.
Some of the proudest moments in my career is when I would hear my
superior (boss) use my words when describing how we would manage
performance or complete tasks.

SLIDE10

Responses to the Use of Power

So just like in Situational Leadership there are times we need to adopt our
different Power Types.

As you can see above we are looking at the same outcomes that we
discussed in the 20/60/20 rule. When we looked at Coalitional
Leadership we were looking to minimize Resistance and maximize
Commitment (the top and bottom 20%). However there are many times
that we need to accomplish tasks and just being Compliant is effective.

So the jist of the figure states, that if you want to get commitment from
your associates, the best use of Power is to possess the ability to Influence
your followers. Spend time ensuring you know what they do and how they do
it, connect with them on some level (as outlined in Situational
Leadership). By doing so you increase the chances that your coalition not
only accepts you as the leader but will promote your authority to others as
well.

There is a cost however, and this is time & effort. It takes time and
commitment for the leader to learn the skills necessary to be effective in
both your subordinate’s role as well as your own. This isn’t practical if the
skill of the subordinate is highly technical. For example you may be in charge
of a team of software developers. You obtained your position based upon
having leadership and other skills necessary for your own job description but
don’t know a thing about programming. Therefore your ability to establish
Expert Power may be diminished. That doesn’t mean you can’t take the
time to learn about the overall aspects of the subordinate’s position and find
out more about them on a personal level and therefore using Referent
aspects to drive commitment.

There are also times when Compliance is a desired outcome. When time
and resources are factors, it is effective to use the proper Position Power to
drive behaviours. As you can see that there are times when you can demand
performance because the organization has given you the authority to do so.
Similar to Path Goal Theory, the outcomes will be better if you reward the
appropriate behaviour. Create standards for desired behaviour. (We will
talk more about this when we talk about Effective Coaching in later
modules).

Wielding power, either by position or personally in the right situations

therefore can drive the appropriate response from your teams. So when do
you decide which type to use?

SLIDE11

Politics

Politics: Activities to acquire, develop, and use power and other resources
to obtain desired future outcomes when there is uncertainty or disagreement
about choices.
Time to talk about Politics

Look at the definition above. This may not be what you think about when you
think politics. You may think of the more traditional model used in
governments. You may think of politicians positively or negatively depending
on many different contexts, culture, geo-political types and many other
ways.

Well the use of politics in the workplace are similarly seen differently
depending on the subordinate and overall culture of the organization.

As you can see in the two pictures above that there are difference in seeing
how politics can be interpreted.

In the diagram on the left you see different types of Organizational

Politics. They range from what we would see as productive, such as creating
the coalitions we described earlier to manipulating others for the good of
the leader. This is confounded that based on the 20/60/20 rule you could
have the same behaviours interpreted differently depending on how you see
and assess your leader.

In the second picture you see what we call the adaptive or inclusive way of
thinking. What Steve Jobs is saying that we need to think differently when
looking to evaluate results. The traditional model of a leader influencing
others is not the right mind set. That you need to create an
environment in which everyone can contribute and therefore
maximizing the skills & abilities of all employees to the fullest
potential.
As we go through the course material in the coming weeks we will often
return to this difference between Traditional Organizations vs Inclusive
(Adaptive) Organizations and how this can challenge the traditional
methods of Leadership & Management.

For now let’s look at how politics is used and why it can improve or decrease
results in business.

SLIDE12

What Politics Looks Like

Politics: Activities to acquire, develop, and use power and other resources
to obtain desired future outcomes when there is uncertainty or disagreement
about choices.
The first thing we need to think about when we think about Organizational
Politics is that it isn’t defined or framed in any specific negative or positive
emotions. In fact it is simply a way in which to influence behaviours based
upon the desired outcomes of the leader.

So similar to goal setting, political decisions that are based on the

organizational values, mission & results are more likely to be seen as
effective for the organization and accepted by the subordinate.
Whereas if the political influence is seen to promote the individual
interests of the leader it is more likely for the subordinate to see
the decisions in a negative light.

As you can see in the slide, there are specific reasons in which a leader may
choose a political strategy to guide how they influence others. The concepts
of networking by reaching out to prospective ingroup members, creating an
atmosphere of mutual gains by reciprocating or using rewards for
subordinates performing the preferred behaviour and ultimately growing
your coalition are all based on political ideals.

On the right side of the slide is the two dichotomies of wielding political
influence. As you can see on the left there are Individual Antecedents vs
Organizational Antecedents.

So what are Antecedents? Simply they are items that logically connect one
thing to another. Individual Antecedents connect the results from the
political decisions to the interests of the individual whereas
Organizational Antecedents connect the results of the political
influence to the company.

As you can see the Organizational Antecedents are more clearly related
to items that impact associate performance. In other words if the subordinate
can associate the leader with the appropriate organizational values and
culture they are more likely to receive legitimate rewards. Although you may
be rewarded by adhering to Individual Antecedents, the rewards are not
based upon specific organizational practices and therefore if your boss
changes you may no longer be rewarded for what you once did.

This can make it difficult as a new manager as you may see positive
performance reviews based on personal relationships instead of actual
organizational expectations. You now have think about how you will drive
performance from an associate who may not be following the normal
development path we discussed in Situational Leadership.

SLIDE13
Leader Frames of Reference (Bolman & Deal, 1984)
Political frames of reference are just one way in which leaders can assess
and distribute influence. As we talked about in the last slide, a new
manager can find it difficult to identify an associate’s commitment to the
organization or an individual leader.

Bolman & Deal deal with this problem by looking at organizations

differently. Instead of Authority and Influence that you need to understand
the complexity of each organization. Items such as personalities, policies,
change and other variables need to be considered when choosing when and
how to wield power.

Bolman & Deal identify 4 specific Frames of Reference as outlined

above.

The four frames is an effective tool in large part because of how it forces you
to look at your company or business from a variety of different angles.
Rather than seeing things the same way over and over again – and coming
to the same conclusions as a result – you are going to need to see things
from a unique angle when you work through the four frames. It might not be
clear at first what you are going to gain when you use each frame, but stick
with the process and take the time to deal with each one before moving on
to the next. As long as you commit to the method and give it your full
attention, you should come away with a far greater understanding of the
organization as a whole.

Basically what Bolman & Deal are suggesting is that each manager
has contingencies for wielding power. Depending on the situation
and task you will think of the right frame and behave accordingly.

Examples of specific behaviours base on the appropriate frame are outlined

in the diagram below:

[Link]

SLIDE14

7 Principles of Persuasion (Asserting Leader Influence) (Cialdini, 1993)

7. Unity: Refers to a shared identity that both the influencer and influencee
are part of. The more we perceive people are part of “us,” the more likely we
are to be influenced by them. (Cialdini, 2016)

Another way to think of Influence is the ability to persuade others to

accomplish what the leader desires. Similar to politics in the ideal that the
leader is looking to change the associate behaviour but persuasion is
defined as:

to make someone do or believe something by giving them a good reason to

do it or by talking to that person and making them believe it (Cambridge
Dictionary)

So the reasons are different even though the decision could be political,
persuasion is the ability to have the subordinate ‘buy in’ or commit to the
decision by presenting it in a favourable way.
Robert Cialdini, a famous sociologist, identifies 7 specific Principles
of Persuasion. Originally in 1993, Cialdini identified 6 princilples:

1. Reciprocity

2. Commitment & Consistency

3. Social Proof

4. Liking

5. Authority

6. Scarcity

And in 2016 added the principle of:

7. Unity

Basically what Cialdini is saying that leaders need to consider the

appropriate principle depending on the action you are trying to persuade an
associate to perform. An example may be that if you ask an associate to do
something you may use the principle of Reciprocity to return the favour or
promise to return the favour in the future. “If you do this for me, I will owe
you one” is a common term promising some preferential future treatment for
something the subordinate does for the leader now.

Persuasion is often seen as an ‘art’ and is promoted in books like “How to

Win Friends & Influence People”. There are links to this book in this
week’s content. It is seen as one of the more popular book in teaching the
‘art of persuasion’ which is ironic as it uses certain strategies and
processes to learn persuasion tactics similar to more of an empirical or
scientific approach.

SLIDE15

Influence & Power: Different & The Same

So to summarize, you can see that people follow others. This is consistent
throughout history and has been told in a multitude of stories throughout
humanity.

Why we follow others has been and continues to be debated. We tend to look
for traits in people and then align them to our own values and make
decisions about who we want to associate with (ingroups) and avoid
(outgroups).

How leaders wield the power given to them by followers (and organizations)
is what we looked at this week. We see the main division is the difference
between authoritative or position vs influential or personal.

Therefor influence differs from authority but is ultimately a type of power.

Whether we have political ambition to shape other’s behaviours or possess
the ability to persuade others using Cialdini’s principles, leaders seek to
change and optimize subordinate performance.

SLIDE16

Ethics of Organizational Politics (Cavanaugh, 1981)

Political uses of power demand explicit consideration of ethical restraints, in

part because current management theory focuses on the value of outcomes
rather than on the value of the means chosen. (Cavanaugh, 1981)