Effectively Motivating A Workforce By Transactional Leadership And Charismatic Leadership
Motivating a workforce is a task that every leader has to fulfil, a motivated workforce will boast higher productivity and better performance for any company, when compared to a company with demotivated workers. The challenge for leaders is to ensure their workforce are committed and motivated on a consistent level, as many factors have to be considered, which will be explored. Ahmaq describes the results of motivation as “Having an underlying focus, meaning and inspiration to work for a company.” (Ahmaq, 2001, p83). These factors show what a specific style of workers want to feel in return from their job, however there are many categories which employees can fall into where their ideal conditions are different, making it challenging to identify realistic generic ways to motivate workers. This study will analyse how leaders with Charismatic and Transactional leadership approaches use their behaviour and characteristics to reach their desired level of motivation within their subordinates, and explain how there are different motivational factors depending on the circumstances and context.
Typically, amongst charismatic leaders and subordinates, they will all share the same views and show positive attitudes towards their goal. This is rooted from inspirational behaviour projected through the leader. House described the effects of a Charismatic leader as “The follower is inspired to enthusiastically give unquestioned obedience, loyalty and commitment to the leader and to the cause that the leader represents” (House, 1976, p6). This may have come across slightly fanatic but this definition puts into perspective the relationship between subordinates and leaders who possess a charismatic style.
A famous example of a charismatic leader is Sir Winston Churchill, the wartime leader had the full trust of the British public in pessimistic times, his inspirational speeches convinced the public to keep believing, keep rebuilding destroyed homes, hospitals and factories in order to win the war, even during years of fatal bombing from the enemy.
Transactional leaders take a different approach, the aim of a transactional leader is to obtain compliance and high performance from followers through rewards or potentially consequences. Bass and Avolio defined the leadership style as “Active and positive exchange between leaders and followers in which followers are rewarded for completing objectives.” (Bass, Avolio, 1994, p4) A typical example of what the academics mean is when employees are motivated to achieve bonuses by reaching a sales target, therefore it is important for leaders to set realistic yet challenging goals in order to motivate the followers. Transactional leadership styles only comply with extrinsic motivation, as tasks are completed by followers purely for the reward that follows, or to avoid punishment.
The theory of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is widely documented in motivation theory. Intrinsic motivators are known to be internal factors such as mental health and confidence, but can also be defined as “intrinsic motivation arises when individuals feel both self-determined and competent in their work “(Amabile, 1993, p187). The other option is being extrinsically motivated, which is a follower being motivated by anything given as a reward for completing a task, such as money. Extrinsic motivation is strongly linked to Transactional leadership whereas intrinsic is strongly linked to Charismatic leadership.
Management versus Leadership
Management and Leadership are two separate entities which are commonly perceived to have a similar meaning. However, the roles of a manager and leader in the workplace are easily distinguished; a manager must complete the administration tasks of business planning, problem solving and customer service. Whereas a leader is more involved in interpersonal skills, they must inspire staff to work at their full potential, and they must personify the direction and culture of the organisation. George Weathersby, the CEO and President of the American Management Association in 1999, summarises the differences between management and leadership as “Management is about controlling.” Whereas “Leadership is about persuading in order to create a common vision.” (Weathersby, 1999, p5) However, it is easy to fall into both of those categories, such as an Officer in the Armed Forces, which could explain why the two roles are often mistaken to always mean the same thing.
Responsible leadership is a style that is growing in the modern generation. Businesses and corporations are held to account for their Corporate Social Responsibility, levels of pollution and employee welfare among other things. As a leader, showing you care for the environment and fellow man, by investing in renewable energy, or health insurance for employees, shows attributes of a responsible leader.
Kempster asks his readers to imagine if every leader was responsible with this quote “A world where harmony, equity, social cohesion, ethical conduct, a sustainable environment and a just society dominate the thoughts and minds of all leaders.” (Kempster, 2016, p18)
Leadership and motivation theory
A famous theory relevant to employees’ needs and wants, within motivation, was produced by Herzberg in 1966 called the ‘two-factor theory’. This theory splits motivation factors into two main categories, ‘motivators’ and ‘hygiene’ factors. Hygiene’ factors include pay, job security and general working conditions. Within this theory these work as de-motivators in their absence rather than simply motivators. (Amabile, 1993, p187) For example, a lack of clean toilet facilities would cause any employee to feel like their employer doesn’t care for them, leading to demotivation. On the other hand, no employee will be motivated to work harder purely because they have access to toilet facilities.
‘Motivators’, according to Herzberg, include ensuring that the staff are “confident and autonomous in their valued role, and the work undertaken is responsible, interesting, and satisfying.” According to Herzberg, these conditions are necessary in order to genuinely motivate a workforce, along with the earlier mentioned hygiene factors. (Amabile, 1993, p187) This is a similar viewpoint to other academics, Ahmaq believes “Leaders can motivate their employees by creating an environment where work is seen as enriching and fulfilling, thus encouraging employees to enhance productivity” (Ahmaq, 2001, p83)
This theory by Herzberg specifically is universal irrespective of leadership style, both Charismatic leaders and Transactional are both susceptible to unwillingly neglecting staff in terms of few motivators or hygiene. Charismatic leaders have the potential to be engulfed in their own behaviour rather than monitor others, while transactional leaders can have a tendency to be unaware of, or ignore, if their subordinates work is not enjoyable.This theory may be over 50 years old, giving the impression that it could be outdated, but large firms still use the techniques within the theory to motivate their staff. Managers at many branches in Tesco have been reported to use techniques inspired by Herzberg such as supplying surveys to give all staff input in designing new projects, which gives employees a feeling of value and meaning, two main factors of motivation.
This brings forward a new challenge of how can the leader incorporate Herzberg’s research and actually enrich their employees job roles with such ‘motivators’? The outcome is that, if fully committed to Herzberg’s theory, they must adjust their own leadership behaviour as well as subordinates workload to fit in with the motivating factors.Improving the quality of work for their employees would theoretically result in motivation, but how feasible is that in reality? Many job roles are naturally mundane or provide little satisfaction to the employee, especially within a transactional environment with a transactional leader. For example, it would take a wholesale change for a transactional leader of an accountancy firm to provide interesting and mentally satisfying work. However, it is possible to frequently praise employees and/or make them feel valued, showing them that their work makes a genuine impact towards the group, and makes others’ lives easier.
A motivational theory fitting in with the values of transactional leadership style is Taylor’s Scientific Management. The bottom line of the theory is that most workers are only motivated by money, and will do the bare minimum amount of work to earn their wage. Compare this to the employers’ goal which is to get the most productivity out of the workers as possible for the wage you re paying, and it poses a problem.
Taylor also states that employees will not naturally want to work, but he came up with a series of steps in order to ensure productivity is kept high. Taylor saw productivity rise if employees each specialised on smaller tasks rather than each performing different tasks. And secondly, a key discovery was paying employees for the amount of work they actually produced, for example paying commission for a salesman if they reached targets. This motivated the workers to increase their productivity, which was a win-win scenario for both leader and follower. In the long run, staff have potential to become fed up of doing the same repetitive tasks, and feel a lack of relationship from their employers who are simply there to make them work as hard as possible.This may be an effective way of motivating staff, however it is short term, and not a very responsible method due to the lack of genuine care for employees, who are treated as expendables rather than nurtured.
Charismatic leaders have a naturally motivating persona, examples exist such as Gandhi’s calls for the Indian nation to peacefully demonstrate against British rule in India in the 1940’s, as well as Martin Luther King protesting against discrimination in the United States in post WW2 era. Both of these men were charismatic in their work, giving speeches to their followers to inspire commitment to the cause, gained an emotional rapport and instilled belief in their followers.
House’s charismatic theory from 1977 certainly reflects those examples as charismatic leaders, by outlining what he believes leaders need to possess or express in order to come under what he defines as a charismatic leader. There are three categories which lead on from this: Personality characteristics, including being self-confident and having a desire to influence. Behaviours, including being a strong role model, fully competent, and communicating their high expectations to followers. Thirdly, Effects on followers, who show obedience, trust in their leaders’ ideology, and emotional affection towards the leader. (Northouse, 2013, p 188)
However there is some uncertainty amongst academics on specific details of what makes a leader charismatic. Conger and Kanungo’s (1987) attributional model of charismatic leadership “views charisma as an attribution made by followers based on certain behaviors exhibited by the leader.”(Gagne, 2014, p188) This questions House’s aforementioned model who believes charismatic leaders are self-proclaimed.
Charismatic leaders are also found within workplaces, on my placement year I worked within a UK dry artificial ski centre as assistant to a young and charismatic centre manager who had diminishing budgets yet high demands from directors. These crippling factors have, in the past, caused high staff turnover and low productivity from staff as they have to work tiring days for less than average pay.My manager motivated his workforce to work hard on a low wage by getting his hands dirty, always setting the example and by creating relationships with his employees, who all performed in order not to disappoint their leader. The work environment suited the leadership style as the workforce was predominantly younger staff between 16-25 years old, who worked as ski instructors, technicians and customer service assistants. Linking back to House (1977), the workforce all had an emotional link to the leader and the company values instilled into the employees, who were so committed to performing for one another, as well as themselves. The results were magnificent for myself and my manager, as the workforce all genuinely wanted to perform, and through intrinsic factors rather than for money or rewards, as resources were strict.
Many roles created by the management team fit in with Herzberg’s motivating factors, teaching skiing for example felt especially rewarding, the instructors were fully competent and had independence on how to teach, rather than being tied down to centralised methods.
While the general atmosphere was positive, certain intrinsic factors were constantly under threat, the young staff members were often verbally abused for the poor condition of the dry ski slope, as well as being frustrated themselves that customers were paying high prices for what the staff saw as a poor service. This acted as a demotivator for many of the younger staff, they were scared of being on the end of a customers anger.The manager frequently assured staff and customers that new investment was on the way to improve the facilities; however, this was not true. This was a clear drawback of such charismatic behaviour, as the staff had full belief in the leader and would believe anything they said, which could always be false.
House’s charismatic theory (1977) grouped together the positive characteristics from three categories. I believe my placement year manager fit perfectly into the criteria House identified as charismatic, as well as Conger and Kanungo’s later adaptation, adding characteristics such as “Taking personal risks and personal sacrifices to selflessly achieve the vision” and “using persuasive appeals rather than relying on authority”. (Iszatt-White, Saunders, 2014, page 114). Contrary to Conger and Kanungo, it has been claimed that charismatic leaders display narcissistic traits, which would contradict their earlier claim of charismatic leaders being somewhat selfless with the sacrifices they make. Northouse (2013, p328) lists characteristics of a narcissist such as “isolation, sensitivity to criticism, and controlling behaviour” which would all compromise the positive effects of what a charismatic leader is trying to create for the organisation.
Another typical limitation attributable to charismatic leaders was certainly on the cards in my placement year, being the crisis that is extremely likely when the leader departs the organisation. The new leader will not be able to replicate such extraordinary behaviour, and earlier mentioned emotional connections are only created in the long term. There was always fear within the department that if the manager left, there would be disarray and mass exodus of staff members to follow. An example of this in recent years is Sir Alex Ferguson leaving Manchester United Football club. His team won over 10 league trophies, with his players putting the success down to their total commitment to the manager who acted like a father to them. However, when he left in 2013 the team instantly became almost average, as they had lost their charismatic leader and the team fell into an era of crisis which is still the same today.
My placement year proved to me that charismatic leaders have serious potential to address demotivation issues in the workplace, and there are also long term limitations to leaders of this makeup but in this particular context they were outweighed by positive short term results. When comparing to a transactional style, it seems easy to pick charismatic leaders as superior motivators, however this particular example of a charismatic leader was in a niche role, making it challenging to make a fair comparison.
Transactional leadership is at the other end of the spectrum when compared to charismatic leadership. The leader doesn’t have to possess any naturally motivating characteristics, instead they can set up their reward/punishment scheme the way they want, in order to effectively manipulate the followers’ performance to the way the company requires. This gives the impression that transactional focusses on extrinsically motivated employees, outlined earlier in Taylor’s theory. The role of a transactional manager is to set challenging yet achievable goals, set specific standards on levels of performance, praise workers for what they have done right, yet punish them for what they have done incorrectly. (Hoover, 1991, p3)
An example of this behaviour is Alan Sugar’s leadership style, within his company AMSTRAD but also widely televised on his BBC show ‘The Apprentice’. The show revolves around 10 competitors split into 2 teams all trying to show their various business skills to Alan Sugar, in order for him to reward the best performing apprentice with an offer of employment. Throughout the show he rewards high performance, following rules and ultimately making money. An example of the key skills which are rewarded by Alan Sugar, from a case study by University of London are “a combination of team conformity and personal ambition” (Couldry, 2011, p1) Which fit in with the transactional approach of compliance and high performance. And of course Sugar punishes bad performance, usually punishing the worst performer of the losing team, resulting in being ‘fired’, having to leave the show and not return.
This show encourages strict following of rules and procedures which is a key factor of transactional leadership. The competitors are not motivated by any emotional link to Lord Sugar, they are specifically motivated to avoid punishment as well as by his high paying job offer at the end if they show the qualities demanded. This shows limited effective motivation as the subordinates work hard for their leader on the show, but does also lack many factors of motivation theory, such as Herzberg’s hygiene factors of job security.
Coming to a judgement on the suitability of charismatic and transactional leadership in terms of motivating a workforce, it is clear to me that charismatic leaders possess more naturally inspiring characteristics, and transactional leaders have a shortage of these, particularly when comparing transactional behaviour to Herzberg’s two factor theory, where certain elements are missing, such as job security, as some transactional leaders have potential to be ruthless like Alan Sugar. However, if one was to commit to Taylor’s scientific management theory, they would see transactional leadership as the most suitable motivator due to the staff being motivated simply by money alone. Charismatic leaders may inspire followers to be more committed and naturally enjoy the work, but if their main goal is to make more money, the followers will put in the bare minimum effort that still justifies them a wage. In this scenario, using Taylor’s methods of transactional leadership qualities such as setting goals, and allocating pay respectively in terms of how productive an employee is.
In terms of responsible leadership, firstly there are no guarantees that either a charismatic or transactional leader would act responsibly. But it is arguable that charismatic leaders show more care for their employees, building relationships with them rather than transactional leaders who have far less emotional connection to their employees.
