|
自古典学派领导开始进行领导人所需具备的特征的有效调查以来,出现了其他几个理论学派的发展。这导致了领导理论从风格理论更现代的理论中的诞生，如交易型领导和变革型领导。
大约在超过四分之一个世纪以前，詹姆斯麦格雷戈伯恩斯有影响力的领导首创了变革型领导的概念。对伯恩斯(1978,p . 4)来说,转变领导“一个相互刺激和高程转换的关系，将追随人转化为领导人,领导人转换成道德代理人”。在这篇文章中,变革型领导的领导风格如何影响员工的工作表现将成为关注焦点。
变革型领导被选择为关于领导风格基础上一个重要原因的理想的重点-这是一个独特的社会维度（个性化的考虑）变革型领导，符合现代劳动力的需求。根据诺思豪斯（2007），,变革型领导响应如今的想得到一些启发和授权的成功时代的不确定性的工作群体的需求。本文认为,领导风格确实影响员工绩效,但只是在一定程度上。首先,变革型领导是如何直接影响员工创造性的表现将会被检验。接着深入分析转型领导如何影响员工的绩效间接通过自我效能感以及应对压力的能力。最后,变革型领导的局限分为三点分别体现在不同的个体表达上。他们的论点将被评估和严格回顾检查，这些限制在大多程度上抑制转型领导加强员工绩效的作用。
Since the classical school of leadership began with an investigation of traits which leaders were required to possess in order to be effective, there has been a development of several other theories on this school of thought. This resulted in the birth of leadership theories ranging from style theory to more contemporary theories such as transactional leadership as well as transformational leadership.
James Macgregor Burns's influential Leadership pioneered the concept of transformational leadership about more than a quarter of a century ago. To Burns (1978, p. 4), transforming leadership "is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents". In this essay, how transformational leadership as a leadership style affects employee work performance will be put into focus.
Transformational leadership is chosen as the ideal focus here with regards to leadership style base on one important reason - there is a unique social dimension (individualised consideration) to transformational leadership that fits the current needs of the modern workforce. According to Northouse (2007), transformational leadership appeals to the needs of today's work groups, who want to be inspired and empowered to succeed in times of uncertainty. This essay argues that leadership style does indeed affect employee performance, but only to a certain extent. Firstly, how transformational leadership directly affects employees' creative performance will be examined. This is then followed by a thorough analysis on how transformational leadership affects employees' performance indirectly via channels of self-efficacy as well as the ability to cope with stress. Finally, the limitations of transformational leadership on these three points expressed by different individuals will be presented. Their arguments will be evaluated and critically reviewed to examine the extent to which these limitations inhibit the role of transformational leadership in strengthening employee performance.
EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY PERFORMANCE
According to Oldham and Cummings (1996, p. 608), creative performance is defined as "products, ideas, or procedures that satisfy two conditions: (1) they are novel or original and (2) they are potentially relevant for, or useful to, an organisation".
Transformational leadership promotes the expression of creative flair among employees. This is because each and every employee is creative in their own way. Picasso argues that all children are born artists. Therefore, without a doubt, each employee is equipped with a creative pedigree. It is the employer who is responsible in providing an avenue for them to express themselves. Transformational leadership is the ideal form of leadership that allows the employees the freedom to express themselves from the creative viewpoint. In fact, Tracy and Hinkin's (1994) study attests this by deducing that employees who are under the supervision of a transformational leader may alter their way of thinking and are not at all hesitant to offer ideas or become more critical in their problem solving. Therefore, it can be argued that transformational leadership promotes the liberation of creative flair among employees.
Limitations
Sosik et al.'s (1999) study, pointed out that it is essential that transformational leadership was not consistently related to creativity across all scenarios. Mumford, et al. (2002), built upon this study by suggesting that when followers are focusing all the attention on the leader and his/her vision, transformational actions may distract attention from work and at the same time drastically restrict the autonomy of group members in striving for their own vision of the work.
Despite the fact that creativity among followers can be said to be inhibited by a highly visible transformational leader, it is not a cause of concern. According to Bass (1985), intellectual stimulation is one of the four essential dimensions of transformational leadership. As Bass (1985,p. 99) argued, "By the transformational leader's intellectual stimulation, we mean the arousal and change in followers of problem awareness and problem solving, of thought and imagination, and of beliefs and values". The "highly visible" transformational leader, despite being a "distractive" flagship barrier will therefore also be subjected to differing opinions of the followers who are independent thinkers. Hence, there is no issue of transformational leaders being too "visible" as the followers are taught to engage in independent views and challenge the status quo.
Therefore, with the argument put forward in the above, it can be asserted that a "highly visible" transformational leader will not greatly limit the employees' creativity and innovation.
After analysing the direct relationship between transformational leadership and creative performance, attention is now be focused on the effects of transformational leadership on employee performance via agents such as employees' self-efficacy and their ability to cope with stress.
AGENT NO.1: EMPLOYEES' ABILITY TO COPE WITH JOB STRESS
Although there are four hypotheses with regards to the relationship between job stress and work performance, the model as a result of the work of John Dewey and Arnold Toynbee will be assumed in this case. This model suggests that there is a positive correlation between job stress and performance.
With reference to the subheading above, transformational leaders are also able to help employees deal with predicaments and stress by the elevation of the level of perceived support towards the employees. Individualised consideration in the form of open communication between the transformational leader as well as the followers help reduces job stress (Tracy and Hinkin, 1994). In retrospect, Tracy and Hinkin's view can also be explored in another dimension. Given that the employees are aware of the emotional support that they are able to get from their transformational leader via their or others' past experiences, they will be less troubled when encountering obstacles and are more calm about dealing with job stress when the situation manifests itself. Perceived support availability consistently attributes to the reduction of individual stress (Kessler and Mcleod, 1985)
Limitations
Pseudotransformational leaders are capable of instigating chaos among its followers. Both Bernard M. Bass & Ronald E. RIggio (2006) suggest that pseudotransformational political leaders manufacture crises to establish their own power and status, to distract public attention from genuine problems, and to ultimately gain the necessary support for their own arbitrary actions.
Despite the many evidences of inauthentic (pseudotransfomational) leadership as a cause of stress, there is a clear distinction between inauthentic leadership and authentic leadership. Transformational leaders behave in ways that allow them to serve as role models for their followers. This is consistent with Bass's (1985) theory that states that idealised influence is one dimension of transformational leadership. The "idealised influence" dimension of transformational leadership states that transformational leaders behave in ways that allow them to serve as role models to be emulated by their subordinates (M. Bass & Ronald E. RIggio, 2006). Thus, given that transformational leaders behave appropriately and does not act exploitatively, pseudotransformational leadership should not be part of the literature at all.
Therefore, the limitations explored above with regards to the relationship between transformational leadership on the employees' ability to cope with stress are not valid at all.
AGENT NO.2: SELF-EFFICACY
Bandura (1995, p. 2) states: "Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations. Efficacy beliefs influence how people think, feel, motivate themselves, and act." According to the study conducted by Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) in relation to self-efficacy and performance, there is an evident positive interrelationship between these two variables. Hence, this positive relationship will be assumed in this case.#p#分页标题#e#
Transformational leadership promotes an increase in self efficacy among employees by providing a workplace environment that provides a self-sustaining positive influence on self-efficacy. House (1977) was the first person to link transformational leadership to employees' self efficacy by suggesting that charismatic-transformational leadership communicates both their confidence in followers and the expectations that they could perform at high levels. There is a multiplier effect associated with an increase in self-efficacy due to transformational leadership. As the self-efficacy of the subordinates grows due to the influence of their transformational leader, the positive atmosphere within the workplace due to the high confidence of the followers also leads to a high performance climate for the followers to work in. Bandura (1982) argues that the perceived self-efficacy of people is raised when they see others perform successfully in comparable activities. Thus, the high performance climate stimulated by transformational leadership results in a working environment that self-sustains the high threshold employees' self-efficacy. As a result, it can be concluded that transformational leadership has a profound influence on the self-efficacy of the followers. This form of leadership is not only directly positively correlated to the self-efficacy of followers, its indirect effects is also extensive, as shown in the creation of a self-supported high self-efficacy working environment.
Limitations
It is important to take note that people's belief about their efficacy can be developed by four sources of influence, with certain sources proving to be beyond the influence of transformational leadership. The four sources are through mastery experiences, through the vicarious experiences provided by social models, social persuasion as well as self somatic and emotional states, with mastery experiences being the major source (Bandura, 1994). According to Pillai and Williams (2004), transformational leadership can unfortunately only promote physiological motivation, role-modelling and verbal persuasion, which is in line with the certain determinants of self-efficacy.
The limitations pointed out are indeed strong cases against the influence of transformational leadership. However, it is also essential to not discount the impact of the concept of idealised influence on the overall picture of self-efficacy. As mentioned in the above, "mastery experiences" is a major determinant of self-efficacy. An individual with a good success rate will thrive with respect to self-efficacy. On the other hand, to say that an individual with bad experiences will possess low self-efficacy is also not completely accurate if that individual is under the guidance of a transformational leader. Although Bandura (1994) argues that perseverant effort is a prerequisite of a highly resilient efficacy, it is safe to say that this is not the case if the individual is subjected to authentic leadership. According to Bernard M. Bass and Ronald E. Riggio (2006), under the concept of idealised influence, transformational leaders who are persistent and possess high tenacity are subjected to emulation by their followers. Hence, transformational leaders are capable of filling the perseverance void which was initially subjected to education in the form of past experience. Transformational leadership's ability to fill the perseverance void allows the followers to still emerge with a high self-efficacy in cases where failures are experience. Given that "mastery experiences" is the most essential determinant of self-efficacy and transformational leadership has such a positive impact on this criteria, it can be asserted that transformational leadership indeed has a strong positive correlation with respect to employees' self-efficacy.
CONCLUSION
The direct and indirect effects of transformational leadership on employee performance are subjected to certain forms of limitations. In the case of transformational leadership in relation to the three points argued above, the limitation is very weak. Thus, it can be contested that transformational leadership has a significant influence on the creative performance of employees. At the same time, transformational leadership has a major influence on the employees' performance via channels of self-efficacy as well as the ability to cope with stress.
As asserted in the points mentioned above, Bass's (1985) theory of individualised consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational leadership and charisma are important features of all the arguments presented. Hence, it is important that all these components are clearly defined and subjected to conceptual clarity. A criticism by Northouse (2007) highlights that transformational leadership lacks conceptual clarity, with the dimensions of transformational leadership (intellectual stimulation, inspirational leadership etc) often overlapping each other. Therefore, it is important for further research to be conducted to clearly define the spheres of the components mentioned above. Successful conceptual clarity will further substantiate the argument that transformational leadership does indeed affect employee performance, but only to a certain extent.
|
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
