Can we lead successfully from only a transformative or transactional perspective?

Question from Kate Slattery’s 21 Sept session on Leading Academic Excellence:

Can we lead successfully from only a transformative or transactional perspective?

I see basic definitions of these terms as the following:

Transformational leadership emphasises qualities such as vision and the ability to motivate and inspire loyalty and commitment. It is more open and organic than transactional leadership and can be said to leave room for mistakes.

Transactional leadership is more task focused, based on achievement of established goals, rewards, punishment and sanctions for set jobs.

Generally if I were to visualise these two types of leadership I would see transactional leadership as a structured, hard framework (imagine scaffolding) with predetermined boundaries and some boxed in sections.  Transformational leadership would be a much looser, fluid form with frayed edges, perhaps made of elastic that could be moulded, stretched and reformed.

So.. Can we lead successfully from only a transformative or transactional perspective?

I see no value in selection between these types of leadership, opting for one mode over another. Exclusion of one or the other would seem to lessen what’s in my toolbox.  I think one disposition may be better for a given situation and the other for something else and maybe even a combination works well.  From observing my own leadership style I notice I flip from one approach to the other. I tend to prefer working for a leader who is more transformative rather than transactional, however I do also respond well to clear, goal orientated projects. The question I have is Can transformative leadership contain elements of transactional leadership and vice versa or do I just want my cake, and to eat it too?

Transformative leadership feels less restrictive and allows room for more individual responses to problems.  It seems to encourage invention and ownership more than transactional leadership, working from the basis that the leader has confidence in his/her team and is open to more than one way to solve a problem.  It seems a more creative approach.  I think I adopt this approach in the classroom/studio and on projects with staff centred around curriculum development.  I see the advantages of this approach being that it creates a space in which we can be surprised and to see what’s possible from another angle or others’ thinking, rather than prescribing an outcome.  However in some situations this can back fire and too elastic a structure can be moulded to a form that isn’t that conducive to the overall building of a culture, stretches a little far from the overall vision or won’t dovetail with the fundamental shape of things or expectations within a programme. 

I have experience this recently with a team of staff developing course material.  The organic process provided a positive platform for development of ideas and lots of discussion regarding pedagogical approaches between schools in the faculty, great collegial links and dialogue was had but the outcome doesn’t quite fit the purpose -  yet.  The work now is to facilitate this work back on track without losing the enthusiasm of the team. 

In a recent conversation around this with my colleague we discussed how to deal with this situation, our shared goal being to have the work done by a certain deadline.  My colleague’s suggestion was to take the work off the team leader and assign it to someone else or to do it ourselves.  My preferred option was to maintain the team leader and to support that person and the team to develop the work further.  My preferred method is potentially more time consuming but I see learning in it and an opportunity to see success developed from the work already done.  Although there may be some frustration to deal with in the team dynamic, getting through that will (hopefully) ultimately make better work.  I’m not sure if this comparison of ways to solve this issue demonstrates the difference between a transactional and transformative disposition, but it outlines different approaches.  In hindsight, although broad parameters were set for this work initially, a tighter deadline could have been helpful.

Some other notes on transformative and transactional perspectives: