1

TRANSFORMATIONAL APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP

Authors name
University

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subject

Page No.

Introduction

Overview of the Leadership Theories

The Transformational Leader

The Big Five Model of Personality & Leadership and Transformational

Leadership
Weaknesses & Strengths: The Concept of Transformational Leadership

Transformational Leaders: A Few Examples from History

11

Conclusion

12

References

14

3
Introduction
Theories of leadership have been continuously evolving over the last few decades. In the
early 1970s, the behavioural theories were the most common category. These included the
decision theory as presented by Vroom & Yetton (1973), the leader-member exchange theory
as put forward by Graen & Cashman (1975) and the path goal theory as suggested by
Mitchell & House (1974). Throughout the study of behaviour and traits of leadership, the
traditional theories emphasized the importance of rational processes and ways to evaluate
leadership styles and methods. The contemporary theories of leadership that comprise of the
transformational theories and the charismatic theories mostly focused upon the skills of the
individuals and emphasized their values and emotions (Yukl, 1999). However the
transformational theories of the modern times have come with their own sets of strengths and
weaknesses that are being evaluated and explored in this paper.

Overview of the Leadership Theories

Leadership refers to the ability of a person as a leader to inspire other individuals or a group
of people to complete a task or reach a predefined goal (Robbins & Judge, 2009). Thus a
leader is not just someone who directs people to complete the assigned task but also
influences and motivates them to go out of their way to achieve their objective. This aim
could be either a routine organizational task or a goal which is likely to bring benefits to the
organization.
The most widely quoted theories of leadership are the trait theories that focus on the personal
skills of the individuals. Traits are the qualities of charisma, enthusiasm and intellect that set
the leaders apart from the non-leaders (Robbins & Judge, 2009). According to Robbins &
Judge (2009), traits of an individual can predict his potential for leadership. However, the fact
that an individual shows such qualities of a potential leader, does not necessarily
differentiates effective from non-effective leaders. When the trait theories are studied in
accordance with the Big five personality framework, they suggest that several of the
leadership traits must fit under this framework i.e. extraversion, openness to experience,
agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability (Robbins & Judge, 2009).
Another set of theories that are of great importance are the behavioural theories which gained
momentum from the 1940s to the 1960s. The basis of these theories is that individuals can be

4
trained to become leaders (Robbins & Judge, 2009). Studies by the members of the Ohio
State Leadership group (Schriesheim & Bird, 1979), have contributed most widely to the
study of behavioural leadership. These studies were able to identify the two most common
leadership behaviours as seen by the employees. These two behaviours are called the
consideration and initiating structure.
Consideration refers to the extent to which a leaders job relationships are defined by mutual
understanding, respect and regards for his subordinates. In an organization this means that a
leader is considerate of the feelings and emotions of his workers. Initiating structure on the
other hand, refers to the maximum possible extent to which a leader shapes his attitude and
that of his employees towards attaining the goals (Robbins & Judge, 2009). This involves
organizing both work and the work related relationships. In other words, this behaviour is
work oriented or task driven.
On similar lines to the Ohio State Leadership group, the study by the Michigan Survey
Research Centre also highlights that the leaders display two main behaviours i.e. the
employee oriented behaviour and the production oriented behaviour. The employee oriented
leader is concerned with taking a personal interest in the work of his employees and building
relationships at work. On the other hand, the production oriented leader is more concerned
with getting the task done and meeting deadlines (Schriesheim & Bird, 1979).
In contrast to the trait theory, another approach to studying the leadership styles is evaluating
how different leaders exhibit their qualities in varying situations. The major theories that
study this aspect are the situational theory, the path goal theory and the Fiedler Model, but the
Fiedler model is the most common and rational model. The Fiedler model concentrates upon
the elaboration of the relationship between the leaders style and the level of control a
situation accords him (Fiedler, 1967). The author recommends the use of LPC (least preferred
co-worker) questionnaire to distinguish the leadership style by measuring whether a person is
work or relationship oriented. According to the model there are only two ways to improve the
effectiveness of a leader i.e. first by fitting the leader to the situation at hand and second, by
adjusting the situation to fit the leadership style as determined by the LPC questionnaire.

5
Yukl (2010) criticizes the model by stating that it lacks the requisite elaboration and measures
to evaluate the style of an individual. Moreover, the critic also highlights the fact that most
managers are too busy in any situation to stop and analyse it with the help of a model.
The Transformational Leader
Transformational leaders inspire the individuals to transcend their personal interests and use
their personal skills for the benefit of the organization. The transformational leader is thus
concerned with identifying the problems and needs of his employees and addressing them
accordingly in the most befitting manner. This is what sets apart the transformational leader
from the transactional leader who is only driven to get the tasks completed in the most
efficient manner (Robbins & Judge, 2009).
According to Lord, De Vader & Alliger (1986), transformational leadership can be studied
both in relation to a leaders personality and his behaviour. Lord, De Vader & Alliger (1986)
categorize transformational leadership with respect to the emergence and the effectiveness of
the leaders. Leadership emergence refers to the extent to which an individual is identified as a
leader by others, whereas leadership effectiveness refers to the degree of effective influence
the leader enjoys over the performance of his group or team.
Burns (1990) distinguishes the transactional leader from the transformational leader by
pointing that the latter inspires his followers and helps them identify with a strategic vision.
He effectively manages relationships by showing an interest in his followers and by guiding
them to reach their goals.
According to the study by Bass (1997), there are four aspects to the transformational leader
that must be understood to fully comprehend the theory. The author identifies them as
following:
Idealized influence refers to the charismatic role of influencing others.
Inspirational motivation relates to the presentation of a concise, interesting, and motivating
image to the subordinates. Bass (1997) highlights that inspirational motivation is highly
correlated with idealized influence.

6
Intellectual stimulation involves inciting the creative powers of employees through posing
questions and challenging the traditions and conventions.
Individual consideration is similar to the consideration dimension as identified by the studies
of Ohio State Leadership group which define a leader being individually cooperative and
attentive to the followers and workers (Schriesheim & Bird, 1979).
In addition to the above mentioned, Laissez-faire is another leadership aspect but is nonleadership in essence. It is defined as leaders being irresponsible towards their tasks. Laissezfaire is a failure observed in both transactional and transformational leaders. Research shows
that where some aspects of transactional leadership are directly linked with the
transformational leadership, Laissez-faire is negatively linked to the transformational
leadership (Bass, 1997).

The Big Five Model of Personality & Leadership and Transformational Leadership
The Big Five as they are most commonly known, are the most widely used personality
constructs in studying, distinguishing and evaluating the human personality. It is of no
surprise that the model has long been studied in relation to the leadership theory to identify
the numerous traits displayed by leaders (Tupes & Christal, 1961).
The foremost component or Factor 1 of the Big Five Model is extraversion that refers to the
element of boldness, excitement and assertiveness as displayed by an individual. This quality
or characteristic is most displayed by the leaders and reflects their sense of positive and bold
expression and also forms one of the major qualities as displayed by the transformational
leaders. A person high in extraversion or more specifically, an extravert can be predicted to
become an active leader in future (Schriesheim & Bird, 1979). Extraversion is also closely
related to social connections (Tupes & Christal, 1961). Gardner & Avolio (1998) contend that
the charismatic leaders are exceptionally expressive persons, who employ rhetoric to
persuade, influence, and mobilize others. These leaders are the epitomes of drama
(1998:33). Thus this suggests that extraverts are strongly inclined to be eloquent, vocal, and
fluent (Tupes & Christal, 1961; and Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Hence, this trait is positively
related to leadership.

7
Factor 2 in the Big Five model is neuroticism. This refers to personalities displaying signs of
worry, anxiety, envy or jealousy. Individuals high on neuroticism are low on self-esteem and
confidence, which are key traits found in transformational leaders (Bass, 1997; and House,
1977). Hence, it is obvious that there is a negative relationship between neuroticism and the
transformational leadership traits (McCrae & John, 1992). Transformational leaders also
possess a high level of self-confidence, because they challenge the status quo and their task
also includes dealing with challenges (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). Also their task is to
inspire trust, faith and visualize an optimistic future for their followers (Conger & Kanungo,
1988).
The third factor in the Big five model is openness to experience. According to Conger &
Kanungo (1988), openness to experience being the least studied area in this model can still be
closely related to leadership. Transformational leaders show charisma, creativity and a sense
of appreciating new experiences. Bennis (2007) argues that creativity and innovations come
from a process of creative introspection and that transformational leaders are not only
innovators, but that they are out of the ordinary. Bass (1990) also highlights the relationship
between creativity and innovation by pointing out the word transform in transformational,
which is a synonym for embracing change and accepting the new. Leaders scoring high on
openness to experience also display a higher intellect (McCrae & John, 1992). Therefore, it is
obvious that openness to experience enjoys a positive relationship with the transformational
leadership.
The fourth factor in the Big Five Model is agreeableness. According to Bass (1990),
transformational leaders are strongly aware of the needs of their followers. They are generous
and inclined to address these needs very considerately. Conger & Kanungo (1988) also
highlight that charisma indicates that the leaders are personally inclined towards fulfilling the
needs of their subordinates. Similarly, McCrae & John (1992) argue that agreeable and
compassionate leaders or supervisors are seen as more approachable by their followers.
The last factor in the Big Five Model is conscientiousness. While studying the element of
leadership amongst the numerous presidents of the USA, House, Spangler, and Woycke
(1991) concluded that success was weakly related to charisma. This factor refers to both a
high sense of self-devotion and self-achievement. Although charismatic leaders display a

8
high sense of achievement and attaining success, there is still very less empirical evidence to
support a substantial relationship between charisma and transformational leadership.

Weaknesses & Strengths: The Concept of Transformational Leadership

In terms of its contribution towards motivating the employees, transformational leadership is
considered highly effective. According to Bass (1990), the use of MLQ highlights the finding
that there is an intimate relationship between transformational leadership and several
important characteristics displayed by effective leaders; such as job performance, retention
rate and employee satisfaction (Bass, 1990). According to 39 reviews of MLQ by Lowe,
Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam (1996), the major components of transformational leadership are
directly linked to the satisfaction of the employees.
Bass & Bass (2008), who also measured leadership by the MLQ, suggest that a leader shows
a full range of both transactional and transformational leader traits; however leaders who are
more approachable to their followers are more transformational and less transactional.
Kets de Vries (1997) points out that the influencing processes underlying the theory of
transformational leadership are still vague. These influential processes he referred to as
compliance, personal identification and internalization. He argues that the theory would be
stronger if research was done to identify what behaviours lead to which kind of result.
Yukl (1989 & 1999) argues how the transformational leadership theories are focused mostly
on the dyadic levels. The author points out how the emphasis of the theory is on identifying
leader influence on individual leaders rather than on the group or organizational processes on
the whole.
As far as the weaknesses in the transformational leadership theory are concerned, Yukl
(1999) and Hacking (1999) highlight that organizational effectiveness is highly dependent on
the type of leadership but the theory lacks focus on organizational processes. Furthermore,
the utilization of resources and the adaptation to the environment of the organization by its
leader, are some elements lacking in this theory. There is also a lack of any links establishing
relationship between leadership effectiveness and the organizational success also. Another
essential element of the leadership in an organization is its effect on the organizations
environment, culture, management systems and behaviour of the workers, which is also
missing from the theory of transformational leaders, the focus being on how leaders impact

9
the satisfaction levels and performance levels of workers on an individual basis and not as
such on the organization as a whole (Yukl, 1999; and Hacking, 1999).
There is also recurring ambiguity about the transformational behaviour exhibited by the
leaders. The identification of this behaviour is based solely upon factor analysis or in other
words, inductive processes. This has not been clearly explained; for example, the element of
individualized consideration is concerned with both encouraging and developing followers,
which are two different behaviours (Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1990; Yukl & Nemeroff, 1979;
Kim & Yukl, 1996; and Bradford & Cohen, 1984). Developing on one hand involves
mentoring and guiding, which is a core leadership trait amongst the transformational leaders,
and on the other hand concerns friendship and care, which cannot be attributed to leaders
(Friedman, 1977).
Another behaviour in the transformational theory of leadership is idealized influence, which
concerns charisma. According to Bass (1997), it is an outcome instead of an observed
behavioural trait. The factors of idealized influence and inspirational motivation are
considerably overlapped in the theory as well.
According to Yukl (1999), the theory should include a set of some important behaviours that
are omitted in Basss model. With the help of several other leadership and effectiveness
theories, he points out that the theory of transformational leadership should include
empowering, developing and inspiring. Inspiring has been explained as the element of
encouraging interest and meaning into the employees work and empowering refers to giving
workers a certain degree of autonomy over their work and also enhancing their selfconfidence and self-esteem.
The phrase full range of leadership theory by Bass (1997) also encourages criticism. Yukl
(1999) argues how the theory omits task oriented behaviour and networking. The first
element refers to the leaders inclination towards meeting deadlines, getting the work done
and reaching specific goals. Networking, on the other hand, refers to the leader
communicating with his peers, superiors, co-workers and followers.
Bass (1996 & 1997) states that transformational leadership is of great benefit for both the
employees and the organization, but is not dependent upon a partcular situation i.e. it lacks in
situational variables. According to Bass (1990 & 1997), the direct link amongst effectiveness

10
and transformational leadership has been scrutinized for several leaders at different hierarchal
levels and also for different types of organizations. However, only one field experiment has
taken place till date on this theory (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). In this study, the
team of researchers neither tried out differentiating transformational behaviours separately
nor analysed the impact of different situations. However, to make sure that the major
processes in transformational leadership actually occur, it is desirable to have a study that
covers all the factors (Yukl, 1999).
Bass (1997) supports the transformational theory by pointing out that it is fundamentally a
behavioural based concept which inherently believes that leaders can be taught
transformational behavioural traits. According to Bass & Bass (2008), the theory also accords
due consideration to the assumption that the differences in behaviours of the transformational
leaders can be traced back to their grooming and nurturing.
According to Conger & Kanungo (1988) and Meindl, Ehrlich & Dukerich (1985), there is
also a certain heroic leadership stereotyped in the theories of effective leadership. These
theories emphasize how an individual leader is able to inspire, guide and bring about
inspiration in his workers on his own. This means that effective performance is a result of
solely the flow of inspiration from leader to followers (Yukl, 1999). The leadership theory by
Burns (1978) accords more weightage to this aspect than the other theories, but all of the
theories can be further enhanced by a detailed

explanation of the impacts of mutual

leadership in teams and organizations (Yukl, 1999).

Although there is the basic notion that the transformational and charismatic leadership
theories can be used interchangeably, an insight into the charismatic theories theory provides
a better understanding of its strengths and weaknesses. A charismatic leader is the one whose
followers attribute the leader with extraordinary and super powers or qualities (Weber, 1947).
Key behaviours of the charismatic leaders in the theories presented by House (1977) and
Shamir, House & Arthur (1993) include: communicating an interesting image, focusing on
ideological aspects of the work, expressing high performance expectations and confidence
that subordinates can attain them. Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991) have further differentiated
between the content of the vision and use of an expressive style by the leaders.
House, Delbecq & Taris (1997) developed a questionnaire with ranges evaluating charismatic
and influential leadership behaviours, while Shamir Et al. (1998) proposed a survey to

11
measure behaviours displayed by influential and charismatic leaders in the aspects of
following, supporting, showcasing ideal behaviour, highlighting ideology, and focusing on
collective mutual identity.
According to Klein & House (1995), there are several effects of homogeneous and
heterogeneous aspirations of the leadership aura in the members of a group. All of the
theories of leadership can be improved by a detailed explanation of how the leader influences
group activities like goal attainment, teamwork, member understanding, member selfefficacy, and establishing connections with the group members. Bass (1990) however, argues
that charismatic leaders influence the followers into becoming dedicated opponents and loyal
followers.
Bryman (1992) and Robbins & Judge (2009) state that charisma is temporary and
impermanent and that charisma in a leader can be lost or gained over time. However, there is
lack of evidence and detailed explanation of the theory. Case studies of the charismatic
leaders who founded new organizations, were concluded saying that the leaders became
victims of their own triumph (Weed, 1993; and Bryman, 1992).

Transformational Leaders: A Few Examples from History

According to Bass (1997), transformational leaders help followers grow and develop into
leaders by responding to individual followers needs through empowerment and also by
aligning the objectives and goals of the individual followers, the leader, the group and the
larger organization (1997:5).
Transformational leaders believe in inspiring individuals and leading them through
inspiration. Richard Branson, the successful British entrepreneur and leader of the Virgin
group, supports his workers to suggest innovative ideas in the meeting sessions and supports
them in implementing the proposed idea if deemed convenient and useful. Even if the idea
fails, Branson gives room to his subordinates to learn from their mistakes. Branson also takes
out time to narrate his own success and failure stories. And these success and failure stories
act as a huge role in passing down traditions and norms of the organization as a whole. The
leaders in the organizations connecting with the subordinates on a personal level are crucial
in truly connecting with them (Entrepreneur, 2014).

12
Another relevant example could be of Ratan Tata, the Indian businessman, owner and
chairman of the TATA industries. He was also the instrumental face behind the Tata Nano,
dubbed to be the worlds cheapest passenger car. His success was a result of years of hard
work, education, experience and innovative ideas one after the other that took his company to
huge heights. Not only have the TATA industries become one of the most renowned in India,
the corporation is also responsible for catering to numerous consumers through its fleet of
workers and experienced team members (Britannica, 2014).
According to Kouzes & Posner (1987), a transformational leader requires sensible and moral
understanding. The parents moral standard of nurturing and care, and their childrens
leadership experiences at school and educational institutes, encourage and forecast the
tendencies for children to be more transformational than adults. The most influential leaders
are both transformational and transactional. Transformational leaders described childhood
and adolescent experiences of nurture and care but also challenging parents with high
standards and good schools to match (Bass & Bass, 2008).
Successful transformational leaders like Bill Clinton, Warren Buffet, Nelson Mandela and
Bill Gates, are few of the examples of the leaders that have changed hundreds of lives and
continue to do so with their influential works in different walks of life. Bono, aged 53, the
lead singer of U2 told Fortune that, real leadership is when everyone else feels in charge
He not only persuaded the global leaders to write off loans of the poor countries but also
encouraged and convinced the Bush administration to enhance AIDS relief program.
According to Seltzer & Bass (1990) and Meindl, Ehrlich & Dukerich (1985), it is the
presence of moral virtue and individual sense of norms and values that when combined with
social environments, bring about the transformations in leaders. The authors also argue that
leadership is an inner value system in an individual and is a result of greater human needs.
Conclusion
It is clear from this paper that the amount of theories on effective leadership and the study of
charismatic and transformational leadership offer great insights into the nature, behaviour and
traits of potential leaders. The theories are crucial in outlining a framework for further
researches and studies to follow. The lack of behaviours covered by the MLQ along with the

13
lack of leadership influences on organizational processes can be covered by conducting
further experiments and studies over a long period of time.
It can be concluded that the theories of transformational leadership provide a strong guideline
for evaluating and accessing leaders today and also for years to come. However, the
weaknesses in the theories display that they are still significant efforts required to fully
comprehend the nature, behaviours and trait patterns of leaders. Transformational leaders are
essential for the success of organizations and beyond organizations too. The key to
motivated, satisfied workers is the leaders that inspire them to reach their goals and complete
their task. However, further research needs to be done in order to highlight the shortcomings
of these theories and a greater relationship needs to be established between why the leaders
impact the lives of individuals and how it can be improved to better suit the requirements of
todays world of change, globalization and booming technology.
Researches through case studies, rich questionnaires and surveys, need to further assess the
leader follower relationship and to overcome the main weaknesses in the structure of the
already existing theories. The big five model offers a great deal of correlation in the
behaviours displayed by leaders, however, the mix of all traits makes it harder to pinpoint
what trait or behaviour leads to what kind of result when analysing transformational or
charismatic leaders at large. Thus in order to fully comprehend and tap into the leadership
traits and behaviours, more research must be conducted to come up with finding to explain
the major impact of leadership actions on team work, groups, the corporations success and
evolution.

14
REFERENCES
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership
training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 827832.
Bass, B.M. (1990), From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share
the Vision. Organizational Dynamics. 18, 19-31.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactionaltransformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130.
Bass, B. M. and Bass, R. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and
Managerial Application (4th ed). Simon and Schuster.
Bennis, W. (2007). The Challenges of Leadership in the Modern World. American
Psychologist, January 2007, pp. 2-5.
Bradford, D. L., & Cohen, A. R. (1984). Managing for excellence: The guide to developing
high performance organizations. New York: John Wiley.
Bryman, A. (1992).Charisma and leadership in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in
organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Friedman, M. (1977). Friedman on Galbraith, and on Curing the British Disease. Canada:
Fraser Institute.
Gardner, W. L. and Avolio, B. J. (1998). The Charismatic Relationship: A Dramaturgical
Perspective. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 32-58
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal
organizaitons: A developmental approach. In J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larson (eds), Leadership
frontiers, Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Harvard University Press
House, R. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership, in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L.L.
(Eds), Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Southern Illinois Press, Carbondale, IL.
House, R. J., Delbecq, A., & Taris, T. W. (1997). Value based leadership: An integrated
theory and an empirical test. Unpublished paper.

15
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D. & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the US
presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 364-396.
Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations.
American Psychologist, 63(2), 96.
Kets de Vries, M. (1997). The Leadership Mystique, in K. Grint (Ed), (1997), Leadership:
Classical, Contemporary, and Critical Approaches. Oxford University Press
Kim, H., & Yukl, G. (1996). Relationships of managerial effectiveness and advancement to
self-reported and subordinate-reported leadership behaviours from the multiple-linkage
model. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 361377.
Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of
Management Executive, 1991, Vol. 5 No. 2 p.48-60
Klein, K. J., & House, R. J. (1995). On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis.
Leadership Quarterly, 6, 183198.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., and Alliger, G. M. (1986). A Meta-Analysis of the Relation
between Personality Traits and Leadership Perceptions: An Application of Validity
Generalization Procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 407.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G. & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature,
The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 7, Issue 3, Autumn 1996, Pages 385425.
McCrae, R.R. and John, O.P. (1992). An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its
Applications. Journal of Personality, June 1992, Issue 2, pages 175-215
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78102.
Mitchell, T. R. & House, R. J. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of
Contemporary Business, 3: l97.
Robbins, S. P. and Judge, T. A. (2009). Organisational Behaviour. 13th ed. NJ: Prentice
Hall
Schriesheim, C. A., & Bird, B. J. (1979). Contributions of the Ohio state studies to the field
of leadership. Journal of Management, 5(2), 135-145.

16
Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and
consideration. Journal of Management, 16, 693703.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept theory. Organization Science, 4, 117.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader
behaviour in military units: Subordinates attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors
appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387409.
Tupes, E. C., & Cristal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings.
Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97, Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Personnel Laboratory, Air
Force Systems Command, 1961.
Vroom, V. H. & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and Decision-Making. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Weed, F. J. (1993). The MADD queen: Charisma and the founder of mothers against drunk
driving. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 329346.
Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, (Trans. A.M.
Henderson and T. Parsons; edited by T. Parsons), Free Press, New York, NY.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education India.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and
charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.
Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in Organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice
Hall.
Yukl, G., & Nemeroff, W. (1979). Identification and measurement of specific categories of
leadership behaviour: A progress report. In J. G. Hunt & L. Larson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in
leadership. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Yukl, G., Wall, S., & Lepsinger, R. (1990). Preliminary report on validation of the
managerial
practices survey. In K. E. Clark & B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 223238).
West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.