The origins of transformational approaches to leadership

In this article they are some topics discussed about transformational leadership, describing the origins of this approach to leadership, then outline the practices most often associated with it and finally weigh the evidence about its individual and organization effects.  Transformational leadership is a term which has appeared with increasing frequency in writing about education  since late 1980s.  In early to mid 1990s, it was used to signify an appropriate type of leadership for schools taking up the challenges of restructuring.  All transformational approaches to leadership emphasize emotions and values, and share in common the fundamental aim of fostering capacity development.  In the definition and concept in transformational leadership, this kind of leadership comes from the word transform which is the meaning of that word in the dictionary is to change completely or essentially in composition or structure.

The origins of transformational approaches to leadership in the academic is from the year 1973 until 1992. In year 1973, Downton’s study of rebel leadership is often cited as the beginning academic interest in, and systematic inquiry about  transformational leadership on non-school organization.  Then, in 1978 Burn published a widely heralded book that seemed to provide a new direction for leadership.  He argued that such exceptional leaders did not for the most part, base their influence on those exchange relationship central to the influence strategies of transactional leaders.  In 1985, Bernard Bass highly (regarded academic theorist at the time) was attracted to this transformational orientation and launch a series empirical studies of its nature and effects. Lastly in year 1992 Bryman called this new approaches of leadership and began empirically to explore its nature.

In the practical/organizational origins, it encountered during the worldwide economic recession on the early to mid 1980.  It was the new form of leadership for new downsized, globalized, high competitive environment. In applicate the leadership  to the  school,  while recession of the early 1980, it give the impact on a private sector much more quickly than on public sector.  School and public sector organization experienced the financial problem and it effect the public lose their confidence in school.  It pressing the school to get back the public’s confidence in this period, including the student performance, closing the gap between student, raising the overall achievement.  For the solution in this impact, there are five improvement tools, including creating quasi-markets in which schools must compete for students, restructuring schools in order to increase the voice of parents in school decision, often through the creation of school councils, legislating additional or different course completions for secondary student, setting higher curriculum standard and introducing high stakes testing programmes that maybe used as the basis for grade promotion or judging the quality of a school’s performance.

In non-School perspectives, Bass ( 1997) has dominated research in non-school contexts including four categories: Charisma,  inspirational leadership, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation.  For the Charisma, it idealized the influence.  It practices which arouse strong emotions and identification with the leader’s personal qualities and sense of mission. Then for the inspirational leadership it communicates an appealing vision and modelling exemplary practices consistent with that vision.  For the individualized consideration it provides a support and encouragement to employees for their efforts and opportunities to develop further  and for the intellectual stimulation, it practices which increase followers’ awareness of problems and encourage them to think about their work in new ways.

For the school-based perspectives, there are three broad categories of leadership practices; setting direction, developing people and redesigning the organization.  For this prescription, that is quite intentional for two reason.  The first reason is specific school contexts require discretion and adaptation on the part of leaders, if they are to be succesful no matter their general orientation to leadership and the second reason is judgement needs to be exercise about when particular practices are appropriate.  For setting direction, a critical aspect is for helping staff to develop shared understandings about the school and its activities as well as goals and vision.  For that, people are motivated with the goals-find personally compelling as well as challenging but achievable.  Visioning and establishing purpose also are enhanced by monitoring organizational performance and promoting effective communication.  In developing people, the capacities and motivations are influenced by the direct experience organizational members have with those in leadership roles, as well as the organizational contexts within which people work.  For the direct experience, it offering intellectual stimulatio, providing individualized support  and providing an appropriate model.  In redesigning the organization it create the condition in school (support and sustain the performance of administrators and teachers as well as student.  Specific practices typically associated with this category include strengthening district and school cultures.

There are some effects of transformational school leadership.  Although relatively modest in size, the body of empirical evidence about the effects of transformational leadership in school contexts attest to its suitability in school faced with significant challenges for change and greater accountability, which support the contribution of this form of leadership, when exercised by principals, to a wide array of individual and organizational outcomes paralleling claims made for this approach to leadership in non-school contexts.  Some researchers have reported evidence about transformational school leadership during this time, as well fo example Mars and Printy (2003) report significant contributions to classroom instruction of both instructional and transformational approaches to leadership on the part of principals.  Leithwood and his colleagues found that transformational school leadership practices explained a small but significant amount of variation on students’ engagement in school.  Silins et. al(2000) found significant contributions of transformational leadership to both student and organizational learning in schools.  Geijsel and her coleagues (2003) reported significant effect of such leadership on teachers’ level of effort and commitment.

In conclusion, there are three categories of leadership practices which associated with transformational leadership are similar to the categories  that have emerged from other leadership research not specifically conceptualized as transformational.  Halinger and Hecks (1999) review of educational leader effects pointed to three consequential categories of practices which they labelled purposes, People, and structures and social systems.  Conger and Kanungos (1998) work identified visioning strategies, efficacy-building strategies and context changing strategies.  The apparent comprehensiveness of the practices associated with transformational school leadership may help explain why such leadership has proven to be value in schools in a wide array of cultural contexts.  Bass (1997) has made comparable claims about the broad applicability of his model in non-school organization,as well.  All the more reason to think that  this approach to leadership has considerable promise in schools saturated with multiple demand for change from many sources.