The role of transformational leadership to survive and thrive in unpredictable environments

Introduction

In the era of twenty-first century, the tight deadlines, budget constraints, and changing project scope may put project leadership in jeopardy in the wake of unpredictable environment. The mere presence of management is not enough to realize successful projects.

There is always an element of leadership that in reality influence, drive, direct, and lead project irrespective of its scope, schedule and budget. Although projects are temporary endeavors with a certain timeline for their completion and delivery objectives, some degree of uncertainty arising out of internal and external factors is always present. This uncertainty or unpredictability perhaps may occur if the triple constraints in the project management are not addressed properly. Plus, the unpredictability in complicated, chaotic, and complex projects is higher than in simple projects. Furthermore, the technological advancements that have been reciprocating in almost every sphere of human life have increased the unpredictability chances to a higher level. The pitfalls created by all these reasons have heightened the likelihood of risk.

As a result, while handling projects where there is an existence of unpredictability due to projects’ inability to comprehend risk appetite, the challenges before project managers are multiple to handle. This may lead to project failure. The behaviour that is to be demonstrated by the project leadership, therefore, needs to cater to the necessary demand required from the team, scope and environment in which the project operates. As a result, project managers are compelled to embrace different leadership styles as there is no one-size-fits-all exist.?In order to do so, leaders need to get familiarised with these styles and their suitability in unpredictable environments.?

There is no universal definition regarding the unpredictable environment. However, it is generally assumed that anything that hinders the stability of a project or organisation can be surmised as unpredictable or uncertain in nature within which a project operates or an organisation is placed. In unpredictable environments, the relationship between actions and outcomes is unforeseeable, unlike predictable environments. Examples such as natural disasters or man-made accidents thwart the stability and business continuity leading to disruptions, crises or perturbations.

What leadership style explained from the theoretical perspective is suitable to handle a project or perform activities in an organization is the central research question in this article.

Three relevant leadership theories - Transformational Leadership Theory (TLT), Situational Leadership Theory (SLT), and Complexity Leadership Theory (CLT), have been compared and contrasted to understand the capacity of leadership theories and leaders’ ability to thrive in unpredictable environments. These theories have captured the attention of scholars and students equally.

How leadership is demonstrated by a leader plays an important role to shape the present and future of the identity of an organisation, or a nation-state. Thorough understanding of leadership theories can help leaders and managers what possible and the best course of action is necessary to survive and thrive in unpredictable environments to manage the crisis while leading projects and organisations. In this article, it is argued that TLT can guide project leadership behavior effectively in unpredictable environments.?

?What do leaders do?

?According to the proponents of TLT, leaders “raise people’s motivation and sense of higher purpose” (Gill 2011). Transformational leadership challenges the status quo, creates visions, develops new approaches, and gives rise to inner motivation among followers who then strive for excellence (Onyett 2003). Four components of transformational leadership have been identified in this regard which are – “idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration” (Bass & Avolio 1993;?Bass & Steidlmeier?1999). There are Big Five factors - neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness, conscientiousness that are most commonly associated with transformational leadership.?

In comparison to TLT, exponents of SLT argue that leaders “use different styles according to the nature of the situation and the followers” (Gill 2011). In other words, task and relationship behaviours of a leader interact with followers’ maturity that in return influences the effectiveness of a leader (Blank, Weitzel & Green 1990).

Whereas supporters of CLT argue that leader “seeks to take advantage of the dynamic capabilities of [complex adaptive systems] CAS... [which] are neural-like networks of interacting, interdependent agents who are bonded in a cooperative dynamic by a common goal, outlook, need, etc. [Being] changeable structures with multiple, overlapping hierarchies, and like the individuals that comprise them, CAS are linked with one another in a dynamic, interactive network” (Uhl-Bien, Marion & McKelvey 2007). In the CAS, parts are made up of complex autonomous systems, have local memory storage that contains responses given to new and regular contexts (Allen, Maguire & McKelvey 2011). CLT is viewed as the result of adaptive, administrative and enabling functions.

According to Baltaci and Balci (2017), “[c]omplexity leadership is a joint, resultant product of...three types of leadership: (1) administrative leadership based on strict control and a significant bureaucratic hierarchy (2) adaptive leadership fundamentally based on creative problem solving, resonating with new conditions and learning and (3) [enabling] leadership that involves immediate decision-making mechanisms employed in crises and dynamic productivity”. The notion of change has been debated from the perspectives of leadership theories. In the case of TLT and SLT, methodological individualism is promoted as against CST in which it is collectivism that gives rise to collective ideas from the multiple interactions among individuals and groups (Allen, Maguire & McKelvey 2011).

This understating separates the TLT and SLT from CST as leadership is seen from the problem-solving point of view and how change is delivered in the organization.?

How leaders behave in unpredictable environments?

Although Blanchard and Hersey’s SLT model establishes two-way communication between a leader and her/his followers, there are limitations from the side of SLT that makes it unfit to lead in unpredictable environments. The primary reason is that it “overemphasises on a situational aspect of leadership” that “ignores the traits or behaviour of a leader which also play important role in the emergence of a particular leader” (Sharma 1997). Sharma also adds two more limitations that make SLT a poor candidate when it comes to leading projects in unpredictable environments. SLT measures the abilities of a situational leader situation-wise. Therefore, “[i]t does not show whether this leader will be fit in another situation” (Sharma 1997). The situational leadership roles are non-permanent in nature and vary from situation to situation (Chemers 2014). Finally, SLT “puts a constraint over leadership development process as it neglects the process by which good leaders may be made in an organisation” while leading in an unpredictable environment (Sharma 1997). This is true as leader has to match her/his leadership style with her/his followers’ maturity, unlike transformational leadership.

Heath (2001) argues that the prevailing assumption in SLT that discounts human agency had resulted in a restrictive “research focus to a linear and top-down analysis of how environmental contingencies affect organisational structure”. This also means that SLT fails to understand the fact that interactions between an organisation and employees are recursive as these are “not discrete bounded entities”. Now, in the succeeding paragraphs, debates within CLT and TLT will be discussed to support the argument.?

?Although CLT is an emerging leadership theory in the subject matter of leadership, there are limitations reported by scholars that make it unable to compete in unpredictable environments if adopted. For example, CLT has been criticized for its promotion of “the emergence of patterns and behaviors that lead to self-organization and?unpredictable outcomes that are purportedly greater than can be foreseen?(emphasis added)” (Gibbs, Press and Wong 2019).

If the outcomes are unpredictable, how a leader can lead in an already unpredictable environment, and what if the outcome as a result of complex leadership adds into the unpredictable environments are difficult to answer. In the context of CAS which is assumed to be self-reliant for the formation of complexity leadership systems, it is impossible that complexity leadership would emerge in the organisation. Furthermore, it “relies heavily on the notion of a non-linear, sudden coming together of interdependent agents in the system to solve problems creatively” (Clarke 2013). It is very vague to say that complexity leadership automatically adopts to cater to the needs of unpredictable environments. What if interdependent agents lack the coordination to come up and solve problems? Dennis (2019), who has rightly pointed out the fallacies in the CLT, argues that “[CLT] theorists are so immersed in mainstream leadership theory that they have been unable to fully escape its framing effects. Thus, in communication and process terms, researchers commit a two-fold category mistake when they use ‘leader’ as a synonym for ‘leadership’ and when they describe complex systems but position leaders/leadership as independent agents standing apart from organizational complexity [which also contains interdependent agents]”. The empirical evidence to test the claims made by CLT theorists also lacks internal validity. In contrast to this, the assumptions and features of TLT have been validated by scholars and theorists through widespread empirical attention.

As seen from the proposition advanced by Dennis (2019) regarding the limitations of CLT, we now move to the next leadership theory - that is – TLT. Dennis has argued that “[CLT] has not been applied consistently to explore how leadership itself emerges as an organizational phenomenon. Its theoretical and critical potential remains to be realized”. Unlike the concept of CAS in CLT, there is a concept of Big Five factors in TLT. These Big Five factors are neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness, conscientiousness.

Judge and Bono (2000) researched to reveal the correlation between the Big Five factors and transformational leadership among 14 samples of leaders from over 200 organizations. With transformational leadership - extraversion and agreeableness were positively predicted; openness to experience was positively correlated; whereas neuroticism and conscientiousness were found unrelated. Due to the small sample size, their research could not able to identify the correlation between neuroticism and conscientiousness, and leadership. However, with a small sample size the researchers were able to establish a correlation between transformational leadership and extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience was an encouraging sign as it could test the validity of TLT with empirical research methodologies.

Moreover, Dionne et al (2004) argue that Big Five factors “could produce intermediate outcomes such as shared vision, team commitment, an empowered team environment and functional team conflict”. In addition to the preliminary research of Judge and Bono, and Dionne et al, there is another research by?Alannah?and Griffin?(2004) in which they have proposed five more sub-dimensions of transformational leadership which are “vision, inspirational communication, intellectual stimulation, supportive leadership, and personal recognition”. Therefore, it is acceptable to argue that transformational leadership does have an ability to retain its significance and importance in the wake of unpredictable environment where leaders’ actions and outcomes of these actions can help navigate an organisation and employees equally.?The five sub-dimensions discovered by Alannah?and?Griffin are important in unpredictable environment where followers are constantly seeking vision, inspirational communication, intellectual stimulation, supportive leadership, and personal recognition from their leaders. This makes organizations resilient.

In another quantitative research, in which by gaining the data from 48?Fortunes-500?firms, Waldman et al (2001) came across the research findings that the “relationship between CEO leadership attributes and performance depends on perceived environmental uncertainty”. Their findings demonstrate that “charismatic [transformational] CEOs in environments that are perceived to be uncertain have positive effects on firm performance”. Indeed, their research opened a new avenue to revalidate the findings with broad sample size.

Similarly, De Hoogh, Hartog & Koopman (2005) researched by interviewing 83 managers from diverse backgrounds in an attempt to understand whether or not work environments affect the relationship between the Big Five personality traits in transformational and transitional leadership. The authors discovered that a “dynamic work environment ('characterized by challenge and opportunities') acts as an important moderator of the relationship between [transformational] leadership and perceived effectiveness” in the context of Big Five personality traits. Furthermore, the results of De Hoogh, Hartog & Koopman, and Waldman and his team can be triangulated with the research conducted by Bass & Riggio (2006). According to them, “[t]ransformational leadership is likely to emerge in organizations and be effective when leaders face an unstable, uncertain, turbulent environment” as transformational leaders put “emphasis on intrinsic motivation and the positive development of followers”.

?Conclusion

In conclusion, the research question to identify whether or not TLT can participate positively in organizational change in the wake of unpredictable environments is answered. Overall, transformational leadership can better deal with unpredictable environments to guide the project leadership behavior due to its capacity to thrive in such environments, unlike SLT and CLT.

References

Bass, BM & Riggio, RE 2006, Transformational Leadership, 2nd edn, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, London

Dionne, SD, Yammarino, FJ,?Atwater, LE &?Spangler, WD 2004, ‘Transformational leadership and team performance’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 17,?no. 2, pp.?177-193.

Alannah, ER & Griffin, MA 2004, ‘Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol.15, no. 3,?pp. 329-354.

?Bass, BM & Steidlmeier, P 1999, ‘Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2,?pp. 181-217.

Chemers, M2014, An Integrative Theory of Leadership, Psychology Press, New York.

Bass, BM & Avolio, BJ 1993, ‘Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture’, Public Administration Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 112-121.

Judge, TA & Bono, JE 2000, ‘Five-factor model of personality an transformational leadership’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 751-765.

Waldman, DA, Ramírez, GG, House, RJ and Puranam, P 2001, ‘Does Leadership Matter? CEO Leadership Attributes and Profitability under Conditions of Perceived Environmental Uncertainty’, The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 134-143.

Onyett, SS 2003, Teamworking in Mental Health, Palgrave MacMillan, New York.

De Hoogh, AHB, Hartog, DND & Koopman, PL 2005, ‘Linking the Big Five-Factors of Personality to Charismatic and Transactional Leadership; Perceived Dynamic Work Environment as a Moderator’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 839-865.

?Allen, P, Maguire, S, McKelvey, B 2011, The SAGE Handbook of Complexity and Management,?1st edn, Sage Publications Ltd, London.

Baltac?, A & Balc?, A 2017, ‘Complexity Leadership: A Theoretical Perspective’, International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 30-59.

Gibbs, L, Press, F & Wong, S 2019, ‘Complexity leadership theory: a framework for leading in Australian early childhood education settings’, in Strehmel, P, Heikka, J, Hujala, E, Rodd, J, Waniganayake, M (eds), Leadership in Early Education in Times of Change, Verlag Barbara Budrich, Opladen.

Clarke, N 2013, ‘Model of complexity leadership development’, Human Resource Development International, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 135-150.

Dennis, T 2019, ‘Is complexity leadership theory complex enough? A critical appraisal, some modifications, and suggestions for further research’, Organization Studies, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 219- 238.

Sharma, RK 1997, Industrial Labour in India, Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi.

Heath, RL 2001, Handbook of Public Relations, Sage Publications Ltd, London.

Uhl-Bien, M, Marion, R, McKelvey, B 2007, ‘Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 298–318.

Warren Blank, W, Stephen G. Green, SG, Weitzel, JR 1990, ‘A TEST OF THE SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORY’, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 579-597.

Gill, R 2011, Theory and Practice of Leadership, Sage Publications Ltd, London.