Leaders develop openness

Influenced by the reasoning of Burns, his disciple Bernard Bass went on to further improvise the model by observing the impact of transformational leadership on the followers as like below: 1. The followers are increasing their perception regarding the importance of the task and its value. 2. The increased sense of the significance of collaborative living is helping them to focus more on achieving the organizational goal rather than focusing on individual goals. (Bass, 1994). 3. Eventually they are activating their higher-order needs.
However, transformational leadership is now considered to be a mixture of four leadership qualities like 1. Individual charisma, magnetism or influence of the leader 2. Leader’s ability to motivate the followers with convincing logic and articulation. 3. Intellectual connectivity between leaders and followers: Transformational leaders are expected to stimulate the followers’ creativity and utilize such collective wisdom to their advantage. 4. Individual Connection: Leaders should be able to maintain interpersonal relationship with followers by being accessible to each of the followers.
Between the above two categories remain various models and styles, mostly guided by the period culture. For example there was by Ken Blanchard’s situational leadership backed by the Contingency Model based on a situational theory that emphasizes the relationship between leaders’ characteristics and the situation (Howell and Costley, 2001). Bloomed in 1960-s, the guiding force of this leadership where they stand like below: 1. Directing: Leaders, after analyzing the situation, determine and define the roles and tasks of the followers, and monitors the outcome. 2.

Coaching: Leaders allow the followers to air their ideas and suggestions before making the decision. 3. Supporting: Leaders pass on day-to-day decisions to the follower, though allowing the followers to control the proceedings. 4. Delegating: Leaders becomes a party to the proceedings, further releasing control to the follower/s, such as to let them decide when they need to involve the leader. This model depends much on the quality of the followers rather than the leaders, where the followers would believe that success is the outcome of cumulative effort of leader and followers (Yaverbaum, 2004).
Then there was participative leadership that suggested involving team members in making decisions to add more creativity to solve complex problems (McCrimmon, 2007). According to Yukl (1998, pp. 123-125) there are four decision-making procedures that carry the leaders from autocratic state of decision making to a collaborative state, including delegation in the end: 1. Autocratic decision: It is when the leaders start with non-participative mode and take decisions on their own. 2. Consultation: Leaders develop openness and take opinions of the followers while making the decision.
Joint decision: Leaders democratize the process of decision further by activating group decision. 4. Delegation: Leaders reach the pinnacle of democracy by empowering the individual or group to make decisions, of which the leader may or may not suggest any addition or alteration (Yukl, 1998, pp 123 – 125). Understandably, situational or participative leadership aim to bring more flexibility in the format of transactional leadership. However, transformational leadership, which is often blamed as based on abstract, too has come up with its new avatar servant leadership, which shows the promise to be most flexible than its counterparts.