This document provides a critique of transformational leadership theory. It summarizes several key criticisms that have been made against transformational leadership, including that the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) that underpins transformational leadership theory is conceptually flawed. It also discusses criticisms around the ambiguous usage of "influence" and shortcomings of the charismatic argument. However, the document argues that empirical studies have supported transformational leadership theory and refuted many of the criticisms, showing things like trust being a key factor in follower behavior. Ultimately, it concludes that while open to criticism due to its theoretical nature, transformational leadership theory offers a useful framework for understanding modern organizational leadership.

1. 1
A critique of Transformational Leadership theory
Introduction
This paper assesses the main characteristics of the criticisms which are
made against transformational leadership (TL) theory. Particular emphasis
is placed on those arguments which question the entire theoretical basis
of TL on the grounds that it has been constructed on foundations which
contain certain fundamental flaws, which inevitably results in questions
arising on the extent to which the empirical evidence can be trusted in
terms of generalizability and representativeness. Consequently certain
key claims of TL theory have been put under close scrutiny. Amongst the
criticisms made, this discussion has deemed the following to be amongst
the most significant:
 the dubious validity of those measurement criterion which underpin
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and the resultant
negative implications this has in terms of the way in which TL
theory is at root based on fundamentally flawed interpretation of
how leadership indicators are measured objectively
 accusations of TL theory being an „elitist‟ concept
 ambiguity of measurement criteria („idealized influence‟ is looked at
in some detail)
 shortcomings of the charismatic argument
An empirical assessment is made of each criticism together with a study
of what, if any, response has been made by TL‟s supporters. Finally, I
outline my reasons as to why TL theory has provided an effective
synthesis of general leadership theories, the advantages of which far out-
weigh the disadvantages, and by extension the successful refutation of
those relatively weak arguments of the theory‟s opponents.
Criticism and counter-criticism
Arguably the greatest charge against TL theory is that the MLQ - an
instrument which underpins the entire philosophical framework of the
theory itself – is conceptually flawed. Its detractors argue that the four
elements which comprise TL theory (idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration; aka
the „Four I‟s‟) are not sufficiently distinctive to facilitate a meaningful

2. 2
separation of TL‟s theoretical arguments from those of other leadership
theories (Northouse, 2007).
Criticism has been made of the perceived ambiguous usage of the concept
of „influence‟ as a way of justifying the explanatory power of TL theory.
According to this view, TL theory relating to aspects concerning influence
would have more substance if the actual processes themselves were more
lucidly identified within TL empirical studies. Yukl criticises the lack of
qualitative and quantitative studies relating to “arousal of motives or
emotions, increased self-efficacy or optimism, modification of beliefs
about reward contingencies and increased task commitment” (Yukl: 287).
Bryman expands on this criticism by stating that it is vital for there to be
a proven link between charismatic leadership and its influence on
followers to the extent that they in turn display behaviours which are
commensurate with the leader‟s overall objectives. He calls this the
„routinization of charisma‟ and states that “if the mechanisms for
routinizing their charisma are poorly understood, charismatic leadership is
likely to be an ephemeral phenomenon” (Bryman: 754). In other words,
all of the qualitative research studies which underpin TL theory are
inherently flawed.
In seeking to address these criticisms Hoyt and Blascovich undertook
rigorous research into whether or not the TL style is directly responsible
for raising the collective self-efficacy of the group in the realm of raising
performance standards would appear to be needed before one could
categorically state that TL is responsible for this impact (Hoyt and
Blascovich, 2003). This research was conducted out four years after Yukl‟s
critique and comprehensively measures those very variables which Yukl
deemed as being insufficiently tested to provide validity to TL theory.
Using regression analysis methodology the authors have clearly
demonstrated how trust is a vital component in the relationship between
follower behaviour and productivity. Tellingly, the results from sample
group studies conclusively demonstrated how trust was viewed as being
the key ingredient which led followers to produce more qualitative work
which was inextricably bound with group-cohesiveness and job-
satisfaction brought about by reacting to the influence of the leader (ibid:
702-4). Consequently, the findings of this study have successfully
challenged the basis of Yukl‟s criticisms.
Furthermore, empirical studies like these provide support to Bass‟s
contention that they serve to undermine the core arguments of TL
theory‟s critics. Proponents of the latter often label TL as a „smoke and

3. 3
mirrors‟ theory with little substantive evidence to support the
fundamental pillars on which the entire theory is predicated upon.
Specifically, Bass argues that both subjective and objective studies (such
as those referred to above) have consistently proven that TL‟s affect on
group performance within the context of leaders accentuating the
idealized influence aspect of the theory (Bass: 56). It should be
emphasized that both the MLQ and Full Range of Leadership Model (FRL)
were originally constructed by Bass as a way of bringing concrete rigour
to issues surrounding the very ambiguities which had hitherto bedevilled
the measurement aspects of leadership theory.
TL has also been attacked for being too elitist as well as placing a
disproportionate emphasis on the „heroic‟ aspects of leadership which is at
the expense of the concerns of followers (Northouse: 193). Implicit in
such criticism is the notion that transformational leaders are somehow
endowed with special traits which followers have no way of accessing;
consequently follower destinies are inescapably tied to the ambitions of
dominant leaders. Espousers of TL theory counter such accusations by
pointing out that, far from being an elitist branch of leadership theory,
both the MLQ and FRL are, if anything, an attempt to elevate the debate
beyond the charismatic „great man‟ type scenario by placing an equally
important emphasis on follower behaviour. In any case, Bass argues, the
influence/charismatic is only (albeit important) characteristic of what
constitutes genuine transformational leadership (Northouse: 179-80).
In a somewhat selective article Tourish has stated that “transformational
leaders are assumed to be intensively charismatic – and it is here that the
mythologizing of leadership begins” (Tourish: 523). He goes on to use a
quotation from House‟s work on charismatic theory of twenty nine years
ago, whilst conveniently overlooking the extensive modifications and
refinements which TL theory has undergone since that period;
adjustments which in large part Bass and his associates must take credit
for. The remainder of Tourish‟s article is a polemical attack on TL theory
without any substantive research to back up such criticism. In my view,
these criticisms are unfair of the most recent empirical research work to
be found in the TL canon. One only needs to give a cursory look at the
extensive journal literature on TL case studies to see that a lot of material
exists which is replete with objective studies that have paid very close
attention to the precepts of academic rigour and objectivity, insofar as is
possible given the essentially non-scientific nature of such enquiries. It is
inevitable that the very nature of leadership research is to an extent at

4. 4
the mercy of those who wish to deploy their own subjective interpretation
on the essential characteristics of TL. In the final analysis, leadership
theory is not an exact science.
Other critics have decried what they perceive to be the inherent
measurement-based flaws to be found in the MLQ instrument itself. For
example, Tejeda et al formed the view that the MLQ lacked a sufficiently
rigorous approach which delivered a research platform that ensured
consistency, reliability and replicablity, insofar as such criterion is possible
with a field which is reliant upon qualitative-based research. They point to
frequent instances of seemingly contradictory research which betray
systemic flaws within TL‟s theoretical framework vis-à-vis the MLQ.
Specifically, they refer to “unresolved psychometric issues with the MLQ,
specifically the first-order factor structure” (Tejeda et al: 36). Having
conducted a sophisticated factor-based analysis into the psychometric
properties into the MLQ instrument, the results of which led the authors
to conclude that their findings “do not lend support the full-item MLQ” on
the grounds that the internal-validity of the system would appear to have
been compromised. Their belief was that the dimensional structure of the
MLQ and FRL could be „collapsed‟ so as to accommodate the results of
their studies. They spoke of the “serious implications” for TL theory that
their experiments had uncovered (ibid: 47-48).
Bass has countered those who have questioned the validity of the existing
MLQ factor structure by pointing to other research which apparently
exposes the inconsistency of Tejeda‟s research “because they used very
heterogeneous samples of leaders from different cultures, organizational
types and organizational levels” (Bass: 24). In this vein a far-reaching
empirical study was conducted by Antonakis et al. They devised stringent
hypothesis techniques by using 3368 subjects to test “the evaluations of
leadership and hence the psychometric properties of (MLQ and FRL)
leadership instruments” (Antonakis: 261) and provided a comprehensive
assessment of the construct validity of the MLQ regime. Indeed, it was
this study which highlighted the flaws in Tejeda et al‟s argument that the
MLQ was an ineffective measuring technique for assessing leadership
behaviour because those researchers were using “non-homogeneous
samples” (ibid: 283) which had the effect of skewing their overall results
as the behavioural contexts were so disparate that they corrupted any
chance of delivering some semblance of objective consistency.
Arguably TL theory has managed to offer a plausible synthesis of certain
aspects of other leadership theories, thereby offering a coherent model

5. 5
which is best able to adapt to the complex requirements of modern
organizational life. A comment by Huczynsky and Buchanan underscores
how TL theory has proven to be remarkably adaptable to the
requirements of modern organizational life:
“a rapidly changing competitive climate requires participative, visionary
and inspirational styles of leadership”.
In this regard TL has successfully risen to the challenges of an ever-
changing organizational climate where “the new leadership concept draws
together the main strands of twentieth century thinking”. In an era of the
learning organization, which is often made up of informal structures and
ad-hoc collaborative networks, it is essential that the leadership is
amenable to such flexible and unpredictable environments (Huczynsky &
Buchanan: 720-22). Such scenarios are closely correlated with the
participative elements of the „Four I‟s‟ where initiative, flexibility and high-
performance are highly valued; as are the ethical elements such as high
moral integrity rooted in a solid value system.
This is also reflected in Kotter‟s highly influential musings on leadership
where he states that it is essential for there to be a significant emphasis
on a leader‟s ability to inspire, develop trusting relationships and motivate
their followers; all of which are viewed as being essential pre-requisites
for leaders vis-à-vis the successful implementation of any given
organizational vision or strategic objective. These are all recognizable
traits of TL theory. As Kotter has stated, “such feelings touch us deeply
and elicit a powerful response” (Kotter: 48). This is a powerful vindication
of the central tenets of TL theory. He is not the only influential „guru‟ to
underscore the centrality of emotionally related determinants (which of
course lie at the heart of TL theory) as being the essential ingredients of
effective leadership. Zaleznik, for example, stresses the importance of a
leader‟s ability to “relate in intuitive and empathetic ways” (Zaleznik: 73).
Conclusion
To conclude, it is important to remember that leadership, although a
massively popular subject in its own right, it is still, to quote no less an
authority than Mintzberg, a “tricky business” to define (Mintzberg: 213).
We should not therefore be overly surprised if any one theory emerges
from all the others to claim the ascendancy, only to be undermined by
others who hold sharply opposing views. It speaks volumes that
Amazon.com stocks over 22,000 books on the subject of leadership

6. 6
(Tourish: 522). That said, this paper has demonstrated how the empirical
arguments of TL theory have been successfully refuted by TL‟s supporters
when undertaking similar empirical techniques. Clearly, TL theory by its
very nature is open to criticisms because the ideas they purport can be
challenged by any sceptical mind who wishes to pick holes in a theoretical
construct which is unable to offer a water-tight defence akin to theories
which are to be found in the natural sciences. It is self-evident that
elusive concepts such as influence and charisma traverse many situations
where the number of variables at play are simply too vast to measure
which any degree of scientific accuracy to a level which would satisfy all of
those who question such measures of validity. As has been shown it is not
beyond the tendency of some commentators to decry the so-called
„rhetoric‟ of TL theory, whilst at the same time, offer no superior
theoretical explanation for leadership in its place. I would argue that the
FRL dimension of TL theory would appear to be the only successful
attempt which has managed to integrate pre-existing leadership theories
into an all-encompassing explanatory framework which is a genuine
attempt at advancing the academic debate. In the grander scheme of
things this has huge potential for the corporate world and, seen against
such a backdrop, the empirical criticisms are relatively trivial. I suspect
(and this is pure speculation but it sometimes the impression that I get)
there is a hint of professional jealousy at play and an inability of certain
contemporaries to accept the simplistic beauty of TL theory, resulting in
attempts to undermine its conceptual credibility.
References
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003) ‟Context and
leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory
using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire‟. Leadership Quarterly, 14
(3), 261-295 [Accessed: 17 December 2008]
Bass, B.M., & Riggio R.E. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2nd
edition), LEA Publishing
Bryman, A. (2004). „Qualitative research on leadership: a critical but
appreciative review‟. Leadership Quarterly, 15 (6), 729-769 [Accessed:
15 December 2008]

7. 7
Hoyt, C.L., & Blascovich J. (2003). „Transformational and Transactional
Leadership in Virtual and Physical Environments‟. Small Group Research,
34 (6), 678-715 [Accessed: 17 December 2008]
Huczynski A.A., & Buchanan, D.A. (2007). Organizational Behaviour: an
introductory text (6th
edition), FT Prentice Hall
Kotter, J.P. (1990). „What leaders really do‟. In Harvard Business Review
on Leadership (1998). Harvard Business School Press, U.S.A
Mintzberg, H (2004). Managers not MBAs: a hard look at the soft practice
of managing and management development, FT Prentice Hall
Northouse, P.G., (2007). Leadership: theory and practice (4th
edition),
Sage Publications
Tejeda, M.J., Scadura, T.A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited:
Psychometric properties and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 12
(1), 31-52 [Accessed: 15 December 2008]
Tourish, D., (2008). „Challenging the Transformational Agenda:
Leadership Theory in Transition?‟ Management Communication Quarterly,
21 (4), 522-528 [Accessed: 16 December 2008]
Yukl, G.A. (1999). „An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in
transformational and charismatic leadership theories‟. Leadership
Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305 [Electronic copy received from Mr Paul
Stoneman, University of Greenwich: 10 December 2008]
Zaleznik, A., (1977). „Managers and leaders: are they different? In
Harvard Business Review on Leadership (1998). Harvard Business School
Press, U.S.A
END OF PAPER