TransformationalLeadership is the theory of leadership that goes well with Amabile’ philosophy:”People will be most creative when they feel motivated primarily by theinterest, satisfaction, and challenge of the work itself — not by externalpressures. (Amabile, ‘How to Kill Creativity’)It is put in contrast with Transactional Leadership that is characterisedby reward-punishment type of motivation. (They are summarised in fig. 10 From Odumeru & Ogbona (2013).
) While Transactional Leadership (also known asMicromanagement or Theory X) is the least admired leadership style, it isprobably the most practiced one. Why is that?Since the late 1980s,theories of transformational and charismatic leadership have been ascendant. Versionsof transformational leadership have been proposed by several theorists,including Bass (1985, 1996). Theconcept of transformational leadership was introduced by James Macgregor Burnsin 1978 in his descriptive research on political leaders, but its usage hasspread into organisational psychology and management with further modificationsby B.M Bass and J.B Avalio (Jung & Sosik, 2002).
Douglas McGregor’s TheoryY and Theory X can also be compared with these two leadership styles. Theory Xcan be compared with Transactional Leadership where managers need to rule byfear and consequences. In this style and theory, negative behaviour is punishedand employees are motivated through incentives.
Theory Y and TransformationalLeadership are found to be similar, because the theory and style supports theidea that managers work to encourage their workers. Leaders assume the best oftheir employees. They believe them to be trusting, respectful, andself-motivated.
Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot
The leaders help to supply the followers with tool they need toexcel.theories. • After almost sixty decades of MacGregor’s criticism ofthe management style based on the “Theory X” (1960), it is stillwidespread under a new label: micromanagement. • 3. MICROMANAGEMENT: THE NEW FACE OF THE X THEORY • • Let us remindbriefly the essence of MacGregor’s theory (1960).
The “Theory X” isbased on the postulate that most people have an innate aversion to work andstrive to avoid it in every possible way. People work only because they haveto. This implies that employees should be treated as “donkeys”, with”carrot and stick” to produce results. It is necessary to coerce andcontrol them and resort to threats and sanctions, as the expectation of rewardis not a sufficient incentive.
Given that people are essentially immature,devoid of ambition, unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their work,they should be actively managed. The “Theory Y” is a completelyopposite view. Its basic premise is that human beings, by nature, have a psychologicalneed to exercise their psycho-physical and social skills in work. Moreover,they like to have responsibility, as it allows them to express and realizetheir personality and potentials (the innate and universal need for competenceor effectiveness mentioned before). The working man is an adult, able to takean interest in what he does and to participate actively in the objectives and activities ofhis organization, not only for economic, utilitarian reasons but also becausesuch participation coincides with his own hedonistic goals. The managementstyle which emerges from this understanding of the human’s nature is opposed tothe type of management characteristic of the traditional X organization.However, it seems that this tradition is very resilient, as it continues tolive and flourish under the guise of new forms, despite the litany of itsshortcomings.
“IfMicromanagement is such a Discredited and Flawed Management Style, Why do soMany Practice it?” is the title of an internet article, and the subtitlestates that micromanagement is the least admired but most applied style ofmanagement. Before we come back to the answers suggested in this article, we’llrely on the following insights of another author, Yves-Pierre Gomez. 14th International Scientific Conference on Economicand Social Development• Belgrade, Serbia,13-14 May 2016• 430• From:• • CONTRADICTIONBETWEEN EMPHASISING CREATIVITY IN THEORY AND STIFLING IT IN PRACTICE• TatjanaMilivojevic• Faculty ofCulture and Media• John NaisbittUniversity, Serbia• [email protected]• • • Micromanagement: from the mentioned article: http://bobmaconbusiness.
com/?p=5899• The positive side of micromanagement is thedesire to see that the job is done right; while the dark side is that theapplication of such stifling control often causes the job not to get done atall.• • Fora management style that is so roundly vilified, it is amazing how prevalent thepractice is in business. Virtually everyone agrees that micromanaging is atactic with mostly downside results and few upside benefits. The problem is that at its coremicromanaging is designed to prevent bad things from happening, not stir theinnovation and creativity that causes good things to happen.Micromanagement flourishes because most managers fear the bad more than theystrive for the good.• The best way to reduce the temptation tomicromanage is to develop an invisible hand style of supervision that allowsthe manager to eliminate potential actions that can lead to bad thingshappening. Once this is accomplished there will be less fear about the badhappening and more reason to allow those charged with the task the freedom tofind the good.
