Leadership is a concept of a role that contributes to the success or failure of an organization. Leaders have the ability to inspire and build loyalty or on the extreme end of the spectrum, instil fear and obedience to subordinates. Regardless of which side of the spectrum a leader sits on, they tend to be categorized with a certain leadership style (CMI, 2013) and level (Maxwell, 2016). We will explore 2 different leadership styles Transformational Leadership and Transactional Leadership, analyse their outcomes in motivating teams including the adverse effects they may have, while attempting to understand what really influences motivation against the spectrum of Maxwell’s leadership levels and Maslow’s law.
Leadership Styles and Their Outcomes
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leaders are known for their acute ability to inspire and motivate their teams by creating an extremely compelling vision. They are naturally able to create a sense of purpose among subordinates through encouragement of innovation on the basis of personal growth. It is an effective style to building strong motivated teams and driving long-term success. As is in the case of Steve Jobs, (Beheshti, 2018), a visionary leader who changed the world. His extreme emotionalism, impatience and perfectionism brought life to the products he made, motivating others to follow his vision as every outcome created a sense of encouragement and growth to those around him.
However, while his compelling visions built Apple to what it is, his strong charisma overshadowed the need for a practical and realistic approach. The high level of enthusiasm and energy lead to burnouts and frustrated subordinates. Transformational leaders tend to be very focussed by the outcomes and results they create. (Isaacson, 2014). Steve Job’s was known for setting high expectations in pursuit of perfection which in return earned him a reputation as an abrasive and critical leader.
Transactional Leaders
Transactional Leaders may sometimes be referred to as autocratic leaders. They tend to focus on setting clear expectations, rewarding achievements while also implementing penalties for failures. They believe the most effective way of managing the work of their subordinates is by controlling the work they do and as a result create the outcomes they expect. An example of such a leader was Bill Gates, his policies on rewarding employees for innovation and success was renown through the organization. Over the last 30 years, Bill Gates approach had spurred many creations and innovation which benefited the world of technology. He was known for being the greatest technologist of our time (Bill Gates, 2023).
His leadership style also instilled fear of failure and obedience from subordinates. Gates was known for sending notorious sarcastic emails — often referred to as “flame mail”, — to his employees in the middle of the night, (Zitelmann, 2020) earning the reputation of being a Narcissistic Leader (Maccoby, 2022). Transactional Leaders tend to shun emotions out of most conversations and discussions leading some to think that there is no empathy in their approach which in turn may not foster long-term motivation among individuals.
Leadership Levels against Maslow’s Law – Understanding what really influences motivation.
Table 1: Maslow’s Law against Maxwell’s 5 Leadership Traits
Maslow’s law argues that we are bound to the basic needs of survival which motivates us to satisfy them as we move on to different levels. Maxwell’s 5 leadership levels suggests that each leadership level corresponds with a particular action that results in followers. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are known for being Level 5 – Pinnacle Leaders. They have transcended their position, organization and industries into the future with greatness. Based on the table above, the outcomes of the organizations they lead confirms that their actions had resulted into motivated followers, aiding them in achieving the greatness on their products in which they have produced. However, did it really have an influence on motivation of their followers or have we evolved into other psychological needs.
Based on contemporary science (Fowler, 2014) by Dr. Edward Daci, we should focus on 3 universal psychological needs – autonomy, relatedness, and competence. When comparing Maslow’s law, the generation we live in now has transcended to a basic level of 4 since our forefathers have over the years built a basic level 2 and 3 for us to start with. While it is noted that not all individuals would have started at this level, however, for the purpose of this discussion, we are reviewing those who already have employment in the corporate industry. The psychological needs shared by Dr. Edward Deci suggests that people need to perceive that they have choices to decide from and they are doing it on their own volition, creating autonomy on their decisions. Feeling related that they are contributing to greater things than themselves derives meaning from the work they do and finally being effective at solving problems and challenges builds their confidence on being competent.
Conclusion: The Cost Of Leadership Styles, Finding the Right Balance Through Agility
The leadership styles applied by the Leaders in reference had critical influence to the organization’s success and the ability to produce world changing products. Their style, while demanding and expecting adherence was effective in bringing out creativity and innovation, these came with a cost in terms of employee well-being.
It is in my opinion that leaders can find the right balance between these styles and combining them to take advantage of the outcomes they may create while curating their approach with individuality in mind. Not every person is the same, we could lead with empathy by showing genuine concern when needed and taking the time to understand their perspective and challenges, naturally aligning to the their aspirations. Being honest and transparent while sharing your vision and expectations will help them be engaged spurring creativity and innovation.
While there is no one right way of leading, but with a combination and agility on adapting to apply what works best will naturally lead to the birth of servant leadership. This my dear readers, will be what we will be delving into in my next blogs.
References
Fowler, S. (2014, November 26). What Maslow’s Hierarchy Won’t Tell You About Motivation. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/11/what-maslows-hierarchy-wont-tell-you-about-motivation
Maccoby, M. (2022, August 1). Narcissistic Leaders: The Incredible Pros, the Inevitable Cons. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2004/01/narcissistic-leaders-the-incredible-pros-the-inevitable-cons
Zitelmann, R. (2020, February 24). Bill Gates was an angry, difficult boss in early Microsoft days—here’s why employees still liked him. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/24/bill-gates-was-difficult-boss-in-early-microsoft-days-but-employees-still-liked-him.html
Bill Gates. (2023, September 1). Biography. https://www.biography.com/business-leaders/bill-gates
Isaacson, W. (2014, October 29). The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2012/04/the-real-leadership-lessons-of-steve-jobs
Beheshti, N. (2018, October 5). Remembering Steve Jobs: A Visionary Leader Who Changed The World. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nazbeheshti/2018/10/05/remembering-steve-jobs-a-visionary-leader-who-changed-the-world/?sh=3eec0a6cced7
Maxwell, J. (2016, August 30). The 5 Levels of Leadership – John Maxwell. John Maxwell. https://www.johnmaxwell.com/blog/the-5-levels-of-leadership1/