‘We agreed, I believe, that there can be no such thing as transactional leadership, for merely honouring mutual agreements meets none of the necessary conditions we identified for explaining why the term leader can be used for anyone. Let’s assume it’s a way of talking about old- style management. So we are left not with a genuine choice between two alternative forms of leadership, but with only old-style management or transformational leadership. Have I got that right?’
‘So far so good. The transformational leader is one who transforms or changes those working for him or her into high performers.’
‘Did the speaker tell you how this transformation was to be achieved?’
‘He used lots of buzz-words like vision, empowerment and charisma, and told some vivid stories of companies that had been transformed. I have hard-copies of his PowerPoint slides here…’ We looked through them, laughing at the cartoons, but we could find no very clear answers to how you changed people. It was mainly an exhortation to be charismatic.’
‘Charisma may work in some situations, not in others. Could the speaker offer you any guidelines as to when his remedies would work and when they would not?’
‘He was silent on that point.’
‘Well, you should ask for your money back,’ I said with a smile. ‘It sounds as if transformational leadership assumes a dual model of relation, where A “transforms” or changes B so that B becomes a peak performer.’
‘You mentioned that J McGregor Burns used a different form of the word – was it transforming leadership? What did he have in mind?’
‘Burns’ idea of transforming leadership was more interesting in that in his concept both followers and leaders are changed, and also the change is expressed as being for the better in a moral way. Followers are changed into leaders, and leaders become moral agents in enabling others to grow as persons.’
‘It still sounds essentially a dual model,’ said the young chief executive, ‘but at least there is reciprocity: each is changing the other. Does Burns have much to say about how this positive interaction, leading to moral improvement and high levels of motivation, comes about?’
‘Not much, I’m afraid. It happens, he says, when people engage with each other in a certain way. Burns tells us that the best modern example of a transforming leader is Gandhi, who, he says, aroused and elevated the hopes and demands of millions of Indians and whose life and personality, he believes, were enhanced in the process.’
‘Yes, there is something noble about Gandhi,’ mused the young chief executive. ‘But surely it was a triangular relation? Gandhi gave spiritual leadership to the Indian people – the most spiritually minded on earth – on the long journey towards political freedom from British rule. He attempted to lead them, too, on the even more uphill road to social equality for all people in India, including the poorest and lowest castes. If you had put Gandhi in charge of car production at Ford and told him to transform the workers so that they had higher motivation levels and greater productivity, would he have succeeded?’
I laughed at the thought of a barefooted Gandhi in his white robes trying to transform the assembly-line workers in Detroit. Charisma isn’t transferable. Nor is personal charisma enough. There has to be a set of factors or forces at work in a situation that creates the phenomenon that Burns was attempting to describe.
‘That dimension of nobility – that factor that changes both leader and followers for the better – must be limited to your TASK circle,’ said the young chief executive, who had also been thinking quietly to himself. ‘If the common purpose isn’t a noble one, then there is a vital dimension missing.
‘Putting it another way, your three-circle model is incomplete,’ he continued. ‘Although it is perfectly legitimate to talk about the interrelation of the needs of task, team and individual, the model now should be extended to encompass the interactions between the values in the task or common purpose, the team or organization, and the individual person. My hunch is that it is some chain reaction of values in this triangle that leads to the phenomenon of transformation of character and transcendence of motivation. Perhaps we should take each of the three elements – the PURPOSE, the PEOPLE and the LEADER – in turn and explore how the values in them contribute to inspiration. What do you think?’
‘It’s worth exploring. But first let’s write down the keypoints so far.’
Keypoints
- Reciprocity – the equivalence of giving and taking – is as fundamental a law in the sphere of human relations as the law of gravity is in physics.
- Consequently, in all personal relations there is a transactional ‘impersonal’ basis. It is important that leaders honour these explicit or implicit contracts in letter and spirit. It creates and maintains trust.
- There is a ‘psychological contract’ in leadership: If you lead, we will follow; if you follow, I will lead. Not everyone grasps that underlying implicit obligation. A French revolutionary leader one day sat in a café and exclaimed: ‘There goes the mob… I am their leader – I must follow them.’
- Human relations have a triangular dimension. In working relations the area designated by the TASK circle is what we have in common. It is as if we are not looking into each other’s eyes but looking outwards in the same direction. A good leader sees others not as personal followers but as companies and partners on a common journey.
- Needs is only one side of the coin, the other is values. The values inherent in the task, team and individual circles take us more fully into the realm of leadership.
The art of the conductor is to be able to communicate with the musicians and, beyond that, coax from them an inspiring performance. I’ve seen enough in this business to know that the difference between a good conductor and a great conductor is that the great conductor can make them perform as he wants and throw that inspiration over the audience…
I believe, particularly with great musicians that I’m able to collaborate with, that the sky should be the limit. And therefore as I am prepared to take the risks and shoot for the limit, then why shouldn’t they follow?
Sir Georg Solti, orchestral conductor