1. Running head: TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A COMPARISON, 1
Transformational Leadership: A Comparison, Contrast, and Synthesis
Lynn Allan Holland
Grand Canyon University: RES 811
November 12, 2014

2. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A COMPARISON, 2
Transformational Leadership: A Comparison, Contrast, and Synthesis
Burns (1978) envisaged leadership as a coin. On one-side is transactional leadership; the
other side, transformational leadership. Transactional leaders drive employees’ results by
exchanging monetary rewards for specific levels of performance (Burns, 1978). In a like
manner, transactional leaders deny pecuniary rewards for lack of performance (Burns, 1978).
Transformational leaders, on the other side of the coin, stimulate and inspire employees (Bass &
Riggio, 2006). Transformational leaders achieve exceptional results through servant leadership,
commonly defined as prioritizing the needs of employees above the leader’s needs (Liden,
Wayne, Chenwei, & Meuser, 2014).
A query of academic journals returns 1,116 empirical studies of transactional and
transformational leadership. From this query, three specific studies have been selected for
comparison and contrast: “Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector: Does Structure
Matter?” by Wright & Pandey (2009) ; “The Effect Of Transactional and Transformational
Leadership Styles on the Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction of Customer Contact
Personnel” by Emery & Barker (2007) ; and “Predicting Unit Performance by Assessing
Transformational and Transactional Leadership” by Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson (2003). The
differences are pronounced and deserve rigorous examination.
Comparison of Research Questions
Research hypotheses connect theoretical foundations with observable and testable real-
world data. In the three research studies, the social scientists took leadership theory and crafted
specific questions regarding how that theory might be applied within various workplaces.Wright
and Pandey (2010), in an attempt to better understand the practice of transformational and
transactional leadership within public-sector organizations, empirically tested three research

3. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A COMPARISON, 3
questions. First, the more stratified and hierarchical a leadership structure, the lower that the
employees will report transformational leadership behaviors (Wright & Pandey, 2009). Second,
organizations with weak upward communication will self-report lower levels of transformational
characteristics in their leaders (Wright & Pandey, 2010). Third, organizations with lots of red
tapes, a proxy for bureaucracy, will report lower levels of transformational behaviors (Wright &
Pandey, 2010). All three hypotheses assume similar causative connections: If an organization is
beaucratic, which is usually considered in the case of public-sector organizations, then there
would be a significant presence of transactional leadership behaviors (Wright & Pandey, 2010;
Bass & Riggio, 2006).
Emery and Barker (2007) assumed that happy and loyal customer-contact employees
create satisfied customers, and satisfied customers help businesses thrive during challenging
economic times. Emery and Barker (2007) researched whether employees who perceive their
leaders as transformational would be more loyal than employees who self-reported being
managed by transactional-style leaders. Emery and Barker (2007) also questioned whether
customer-contact employees would have a higher level of job satisfaction when they self-
reported being managed by transformational leaders.
Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson, working within the spectrum of military leadership,
investigated whether transformational leadership would predict unit performance, unit
consistency, and unit capability (2003). Bass et al. questioned whether military leaders, no doubt
stereotypically considered to be transactional leaders, were on one-side or the other of the
leadership coin.
All three research studies (Wright & Pandey, 2010; Emery & Barker, 2007; Bass et al.,
2003) used an either/or analysis of leadership dimensions – a leader demonstrated either

4. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A COMPARISON, 4
transactional behaviors or transformational behaviors. Only Bass et al. considered an
empirically-tested hypothesis where transformational leadership and transactional leadership
occurs on a continum (2003). Bass et al. posited that transactional behavior (i.e., contingent
reward) will impact unit performance, but not as much as transformational leadership behaviors
(2003).
Comparison of Literature Reviews
In their work titled, “The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success,” Machi and McEvoy
defined the purpose of literature reviews by discussing the process of academic inquiry (2012).
First, the what of the inquiry. Researchers begin with a topic that interests them. Second, the why
of the inquiry. Researchers narrow the topic and focus on one or more gaps in the body of work
on the subject. Typically, the goal is to either further explore a topic or expand the results of
previous studies by analyzing new sample populations. Last, the so what of the academic study.
The literature review is an argument by authority. After conducting a detailed review of what
authorities had to say about their research questions, the researchers used those same authorities
to support their own research theses (Machi & McEvoy, 2012). In Wright and Pandey (2010),
Emery and Barker (2007), and Bass et al. (2003), the research teams used simliar organizational
themes in their literature reviews; the differences between the reviews are specifically related to
the hypotheses that each team wanted to explore.
In all three studies, the literature reviews explained the historical development of the
theory regarding leadership styles. Specifically mentioned was Burns’ (1978) leadership theory
regarding two types of leaders, transactional and transformational. The researchers continued
their reviews by mentioning Bass’ (1998) and Avolio’s (1999) studies which indicated a strong
correlation between the two leadership styles and the performance of organizations. Similiarities

5. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A COMPARISON, 5
end after all three research studies discussed that supervisors’ leadership styles directly influence
their employees. When employees are motivated and engaged in accomplishing the
organization’s goals, results improve. In fact, the larger the group of employees, then the larger
the impact of transformational leadership on positive results (DeGroot, Kiker, & Cross, as cited
in Bass et al., 2003, pg. 207). Most importantly, Wright and Pandey (2010), Emery and Barker
(2007), and Bass et al. (2003), all agreed that previous studies supported transformational
leadership as the most effective leadership model.
The differences between the three literature reviews depend on the respective research
inquiries. Wright and Pandey (2010) acknowledged and recognized a new direction to explore.
Referencing a study by Bass and Riggio (2006), Wright and Pandey (2010) found that, in theory,
three aspects of transformational leadership were well-suited within non-profit and governmental
organizations, both of which have strong missions. Inspirational leaders who model desired
behaviors and intellectually stimulate employees produce better results. However, if and only if,
the organizations allow for “flexibility in how work is completed” (Wright & Pandey, 2010, pg.
77). Based upon authoritatively-supported literature, Wright and Pandey developed their four
hypotheses regarding the use of transformational leadership attributes within highly beaucratic
organizations.
Referencing authoritative research, Emery and Barker (2007) focused their literature
review specifically on research questions regarding “leadership as a correlate for job
satisfaction” and “leadership as a correlate for organizational commitment” (pg. 81). As cited in
Emery & Barker (2007), Bass (1987) “conceptualized a two-factor model” (pg. 80) where both
passive and active application of transactional leadership methods were defined. Passive
transactional leadership uses negative reinforcement and a staus-quo approach, if it is not broke

6. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A COMPARISON, 6
then do not try to fix it, when defining work processes and managing employee performance
(Emery & Barker, 2007). Active transactional leadership refers to a tit-for-tat leadership
approach where leaders award recognition or pecuniary incentives for good employee results in
the workplace (Emery & Barker, 2007). In a vastly different approach from both Wright &
Pandey (2010) and Bass et. al (2003), Emery and Barker (2007) hinged their research on Bass’
two-factor model and developed two specific hypotheses regarding correlates for job satisfaction
and institutional commitment.
Bass et al. (2003), referencing many of their own research studies (Bass, 1998; Riggio,
1999; Howell & Avolio, 1993) , moved beyond discussing the historical development of
leadership theory and focused on predictive modeling of performance. Within the context of
military units, supported by authoritative studies regarding transformational and transactional
leadership styles, Bass et al. (2003) postulated that military units led by transformational leaders
would perform better than units led by transactional leaders. None of the other three studies used
their literature review to support a predictive approach within their respective research questions.
Comparison of Sample Populations
Sample populations must be statistically representative of the larger population of
interest. If not, then deductions and inductions from the data are flawed. Wright and Pandey
mailed surveys to 3,316 individuals who were listed in a database of city or county
administrators from cities or counties with populations greater than 50,000 residents (2010). The
database is maintained by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and is
“an authoritative source of information regarding U.S. local government jurisdictions and
professionals serving in [those] jurisdictions” (Wright & Pandey, 2010, p. 80). There were
“1,538 responses, for a response rate of 46.4%” (Wright & Pandey, 2010, para. 14). Wright

7. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A COMPARISON, 7
and Pandey further reduced the sample population by eliminating 216 surveys that self-reported
leadership behaviors directly from the administrators themselves (2010). The researchers used
the remaining 1,322 responses, and additional steps were taken to address potential bias within
the sampled population (Wright & Pandey, 2010).
In “The Effect of Transactional and Transformational Leadership Styles on the
Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction of Customer Contact Personnel”, Emery and
Barker studied 77 bank managers and 47 store managers by mailing a truncated-version of the
Management Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-1) to a random sample of four tellers or four
cashiers who directly reported to the referent managers (2007). The useable responses were 95%
of the total tellers responded, and 50% of the cashiers responded (Emery & Barker, 2007).
Bass et al. studied the leadership behaviors of the 72 non-commissioned officers (NCOs)
and 72 commissioned officers (COs) who together led 72 platoons through military exercises at
Fort Polk, Lousiana (2003). Soldiers in the 72 platoons voluntarily completed Multiple
Leadership Questionaires (MLQ-5) that had been modified to add standard military descriptors
regarding leadership behaviors (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). There were 1,340
responses regarding COs and 1,335 responses regarding NCOs (Bass et al., 2003). The
researchers also relied on ratings from trained military evaluators for “a total of 1,594 ratings for
unit cohesion and potency” (Bass et al., 2003, p. 211).
According to Amitav Banerjee and Suprakash Chaudhury (2010), the population must be
well defined with particular principles regarding who or what is included or excluded from the
sample. In addition, the research questions will dictate the required sample population so that
inferences can be drawn from the acquired data (Banerjee & Chaudhury, 2010). Of the three
research studies (Wright & Pandey, 2010; Emery & Barker, 2007; Bass et al., 2003) only one

8. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A COMPARISON, 8
completely failed to connect the sample population to the research question. Emery & Barker’s
random sampling of four tellers and four cashiers introduced sampling bias into the data, both
non-response bias (50% response rate for cashiers) and selection bias (100% of the tellers were
females) (2007). Wright & Pandey (2010) made post-response decisions to eliminate self-
reported leadership behaviors and to reduce the potential bias from local governments with fewer
than three respondents. Although necessary and sufficient, the elimination could have been
proactively adjusted when the MLQ surveys were first mailed to the selected database of
administrators.
Comparison of Limitations
The best approach to comparing and contrasting the limitations of the three research
studies is to chunk the limitations into one of the two possible categories. Limitations
acknowledged by the researchers and limitations unidentified by the researchers.
First, the acknowledged limitations, Wright and Pandey (2010) described the possibility
that the causal direction might be reversed such that transformational leadership is the
independent variable, and hierarchical structure is the dependent variable. In an effort to support
the direction of causality, the researchers also “estimated the model for only jurisdictions where
[administrators] had less than two years of tenure” (Wright & Pandey, 2009, p. 84), and the
estimated parameters indicated that transformational leadership was still associated with “greater
use of lateral/upper communication and performance measures” (p. 84). Emery and Barker did
not acknowledge any limitations of their research (2007); therefore Emery and Barker displace
credibility because of the numerous limitations, wrong assumptions, and biases found in their
research. Finally, Bass et al. clearly explained four limitations of their research study (2003):
platoons had disproportionate percentages of new soldiers, which could explain a large

9. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A COMPARISON, 9
percentage of the variance in platoon performance; expert observers provided developmental
feedback following training missions, and that feedback was likely incorporated into future
missions which skewed the following assessments; the combined leadership of the NCOs and
COs was not captured, a meta-leadership variable should have been tested too; and the collection
of effectiveness and cohesion measures occurred at the same time, likely introducing selection
bias into the data.
Second, review of the unidentified limitations, both Wright & Pandey (2010) and Bass et
al. (2003) have limitations that were not addressed, but these limitations were appropriately
discussed in recommendations for future research. However, Emery and Barker (2007) failed to
acknowledge limitations and thereby offer conclusions that do not follow from the research. In
order to make accurate inferences, the sample has to be representative of the population, which
means that “every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected” (Banerjee &
Chaudhury, 2010, para. 19). Emery and Barker randomly sampled four cashiers and four tellers,
clearly not representative of the population, especially considering the low response rates of 50%
and 95% respectively (2007). Poor sampling procedures introduced undercoverage bias and
nonresponse bias, and resulted in reduced inferential statistics (Banerjee & Chaudhury, 2010).
Additionally, limitations included potential gender bias (100% of the tellers were female);
mediating factors were ignored, especially the assumption that leadership styles link directly to
an employee’s job performance; and a potential voluntary response bias, where respondents are
self-selected participants who might introduce biased feedback.
Conclusions, Results, and Recommendations for Further Research
Synthesizing the three studies, results in recommendations for future studies of
transformational and transactional leadership behavior. Both Wright & Pandey (2010) and Bass,

10. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A COMPARISON, 10
Avolio, Jung, and Berson (2003) provide plausible, evidence-based research that strongly
supports that transformational leadership can be used to predict peformance even in
organizations that are considered highly beaureaucratic. However, limitations in Emery and
Barker (2007) mean that the “impact of transformational leadership behaviors on relatively low-
paid and high-school educated” [employees] cannot be inferred (p. 86). In fact, because of the
limitations in the Emery and Barker’s (2007) research, even their conclusion that
transformational leadership increases job satisfaction and employee loyalty is suspect.
Recomendations for further research include using meta-variables to capture combined-effects
transformational leadership behavior (described in Bass et al.), systematic random sampling to
remove the voluntary response bias (as found in Emery & Barker), and the addition of tenure as a
proxy variable for confirming the direction of causality within the model’s construct (described
in Wright and Pandey).

11. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A COMPARISON, 11
References
Banerjee, A., & Chaudhury, S. (2010, Jan - Jun). Statistics without tears: Populations and
samples. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 19(1), 60-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-
6748.77642
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(2), 207-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Emery, C. R., & Barker, K. J. (2007). The effect of transactional and transformational leadership
styles on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of customer contact
personnel. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications, and Conflict, 11, 77-90.
Retrieved from
http://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/lo
gin.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=27436222&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Chenwei, L., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving
culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal,
57, 1434-1452. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0034
Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2012). The literature review: Six steps to success. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.

12. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A COMPARISON, 12
Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2009, April 30). Transformational leadership in the public
sector: Does structure matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
20(1), 75-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup003