Transactional Leadership
THE TRANSACTIONAL – TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP TYPOLOGY
AND TRAITS OF TRANSACTIONAL LEADERS
History of the Theory
Max Weber first described Transactional-type leadership,
calling it Legal-Rational authority
This is one of three sources of authority:
1.
2.
3.
Charismatic
Traditional
Legal-Rational (Transactional)
For Weber, Legal-Rational authority is the most stable, and
therefore the most mature form
History of the Theory
James MacGregor Burns, and later Bernard Bass, developed
the Transactional vs Transformational leadership typology
MacGregor Burns defines leadership as:
“Leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that
represent the values and the motivation—the wants and
needs, the aspirations and expectations– of both
followers and leaders” (Leadership, 1978)
The Transactional-Transformational typology focuses on the
leader’s actions and the leader-follower interaction, rather
than the internal processes of the leader
Transactional vs Transformational
The two types of leadership differ based on the nature of the interaction
between leaders and followers
Transactional: Initiative taken for purpose of exchanging valued things
Transformational: Leaders and followers engage to “raise one another to higher
levels of motivation and morality”
Transactional Leadership
Leader and followers pursue joint purpose
Leader takes initiative to make contact, with the purpose of mutually beneficial
exchange
Examples:
◦ Political: Logrolling votes in Congress; Politician exchanges promises for votes
◦ Economic: Exchanging commodity for money; labor for a wage
◦ Social: Teacher gives grade for coursework
However, there is no enduring purpose that binds the leader and follower
together
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Transactional leaders focus on lower order
needs to create motivation
• Basic necessities and security to motivate
behavior, rather than higher purpose
Transactional Leadership focuses on process rather than innovation
◦ Focus is on reward and punishment
◦ Transactional Leadership focuses on process rather than innovation
Traits of Transactional Leaders
Work within existing system (or organizational culture)
Focus on marginal improvements to follower performance
Use reward and punishment to incentivize follower behavior
◦ Appeal to followers’ self-interest
More management than leadership
◦ Process and task focused
◦ Management by Exception: Punish deviation, reward task completion
Benefits of Transactional Leadership
Responsive (rather than proactive)
Effective in crises, well-defined hierarchies, and simple/defined
problems
Transactional leadership is good for maintaining status quo
Transactional vs Transformational
Transactional:
Transformational:
 Responsive
 Proactive
 Transcendent/Innovative
 Appeal to higher purposes
 Within system/culture
 Impersonal
 Appeal to lower-order needs
Relation to Other Leadership Theories
Focused on behaviors and actions of leaders, rather than traits
Transactional leadership employs the known responses to reward and
punishment, as documented by B.F. Skinner and others
Transactional leadership is closest to task-oriented leadership and “telling”
(Fielder 1967; Hersey and Blanchard (1976)
While Burns and Bass see Transformational leadership as superior, the relative
merits depend on the situation (Contingency)
Sources
Bass, Bernard. “From Transactional to Transformational: Learning to Share the Vision.”
Organizational Dynamics 18:3 (Winter 1990): Pages 19-31
Bass, Bernard, and Ralph Melvin Stogdill. Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory,
Research, and Managerial Applications. New York: The Free Press, 1990.
Kuhnert, Karl W., and Philip Lewis. "Transactional and Transformational Leadership: A
Constructive/Developmental Analysis." Academy of Management Review 12.4 (1987): 648-657.
MacGregor Burns, James. “Transactional and Transforming Leadership.” from Leadership.
HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1978.
Odumeru, James A. and Ifeanyi George Ogbonna “Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership
Theories: Evidence in Literature," International Review of Management and Business Research
2:2 (2013).