The limitation of transformational leadership

| January 5, 2016

Assessment for this course unit is through one assignment of 2,000 words, not including references. You may write between 1,800 and

2,200 words without incurring a penalty. The title is of your own choosing (in consultation with Steve) and must relate to one of the

topics and themes covered in the taught element of the course unit. Below is some general guidance on completing the assignment.

1. You need to write this assignment in a way which resembles the articles you are reading on leadership. This means that you should

not simply explore all the evidence in a given area and then reveal what you think of it all in the conclusion: you state in the

introduction what your argument will be. The argument should be sufficiently sophisticated to require 2,000 words to develop it. So, be

clear from the outset what it is that you are going to say- what is your central point? You must take a position. The sections will

then break down your argument into manageable chunks. You will address each in turn, developing your thinking in relation to the

literature. Together, the sections contribute to your making that point – your argument. This means that, in a sense, your argument and

your sections/structure are the same thing: the latter are just how you express the former. If you are struggling to think of what you

need to cover in order to make up the word count, it may be because you are not clear what your argument is, and therefore you are not

clear what needs to be said in sub-sections to say it.

2. This does not mean that you don’t include literature which disagrees with the point you are trying to make. You must simply work it

into your assignment by countering it with the oppositional sources, and say why you find these latter more convincing.

3. Sign-post your writing. Write explicitly at, for example, the start of section three: ‘In the last section, I argued that …. by

… Now, I shall argue that …’. The very best sign-posting would also make it clear at this point what each section contributes to

the overall argument, and/or why this particular area is being addressed at this point in the assignment. If you do this, you will see

that the assignment starts to look coherent- it starts to flow as an argument.

4. The development from the plan to the draft. It is always the case that an assignment will develop as you write it. In fact, it is

normally better for this to happen as you will see how to focus and edit as you write and re-write the text. As you do this please

don’t forget to develop the title – it may be that the original title you have has to change.

5. Reading. There are reading lists on Blackboard for all the topics we have covered/will cover. I have pointed out to individual

people the main authors for your particular topic. Don’t forget to do your own search as well so that you can show that you have been

able to find literatures to support your particular project. Google scholar is very helpful.

6. Developing a voice. One of the hardest things is to develop a critical voice. My recommendation is that you do not write about your

opinions or beliefs. This is because a UG degree is not about what you think or feel or have a strong view about. You need to see

yourself as a scholar, and to write as a scholar. As you read you will see this in action. What you need to do when you critique what

you have read is to write about whether the evidence is there, or whether the argument is convincing or not. You can use “I” so that

you can tell the reader what you are writing about, but it is your assessment of what the reading has told you. Have a look at the

example in Bb. My recent paper on ‘post-panopticism’ also does this.

7. Make sure that you do not devote too many of the word count to description, e.g. ‘Smith said this and Ali said that’. You will get

your higher marks for being evaluative and critical. This is why you need an argument; it helps to show that you are doing this.

8. References that are not in English. A number of you will do reading in your own language and want to use the literatures in your

assignment. That is fine. However, you do need to make sure that in the actual assignment everything is in English e.g. a quotation and

the name of the author(s). In the list of references you will need to include both the English and the original language.
9. Using examples. A number of people usually say that they want to use examples or ‘cases’ to illustrate in the assignment. That is

fine as long as the example or case is published. Please do not use stories or accounts from your experience. This is because this

assignment is based on the research literatures. Rarely, you may use examples from quality newspapers or other media if the case has

not appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. If you do this, make sure you are using a considerable number of peer-reviewed sources as

well to balance the assignment back in favour of the academic.

10. Don’t forget that if you quote from what you have read, use quotation marks e.g. “This is a good point about leadership” and put

the page number of the quotation.

11. Remember to correctly present the references at the end of the assignment. Use the reading lists as an example of how to present

the references, for example, the title of a book and a journal must be in italics.

12. In the conclusion, return to your title- have you answered the question or fulfilled the task? You will have hopefully done that

through making your argument persuasively over the main body of the assignment, drawing on literature to support your stance. Then make

recommendations- see assignment guidance for details.

Further Reading
Functionalist perspectives on leadership
Bass B. M., Stogdill R. M. and Stogdill R. M. (1990) Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial

applications. New York: Free Press.
Batten, Joe (1991). Real Leadership Is the Answer. Manage, 43(1), 24–27.
Jago, A.G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in Theory and Research. Management Science, 28(3), 315–336.
Judge T. A., Piccolo R. F. and Kosalka T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the

leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 855–875.
Leithwood K. (2005). Understanding successful principal leadership: progress on a broken front. Journal of Educational Administration,

43(6), 619–629.
Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature. The Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35–71.

Critical perspectives on leadership
Carroll, B., Ford, J., and Taylor, S. (eds.) (2015). Leadership: Contemporary critical perspectives. London: Sage.
Collinson D. (2012). Prozac leadership and the limits of positive thinking. Leadership, 8(2), 87–107.
Delaney, H., and Spoelstra, S. (2015). Transformational leadership: Secularized theology? In: Carroll, B., Ford, J., and Taylor, S.

(eds.) (2015). Leadership: Contemporary critical perspectives. London: Sage, pp. 69–86.
Eacott, S. (2014). Beyond the hype of ‘leadership’. Perspectives on educational leadership, 20(1), 1–3.
Gronn P. (2003). Leadership: Who needs it? School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 267–291.
Gunter H., Hall D. and Bragg J. (2013). Distributed Leadership: A Study in Knowledge Production. Educational Management Administration

& Leadership, 41(5), 555–580.
Spicer A. and Bohm S. (2007). Moving Management: Theorizing Struggles against the Hegemony of Management, Organization Studies, 28(11),

Western S. (2008). Leadership: a critical text. Los Angeles, California: Sage.

Transactional and Transformational (including charismatic part 1) leadership
Bass B. M. (1985a) Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass B. M. (1985b). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26–40.
Bass B. M. (1990). From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3),

19–31.Burns J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Conger, J.A., and Kanungo, N. (1987). Toward a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic Leadership in Organizational Settings. Academy of

Management Review, 12(4), 637–647.
Currie, G., and Lockett, A. (2007). A critique of transformational leadership: Moral, professional and contingent dimensions of

leadership within public services organizations. Human Relations, 60(2), 341–370.
Kezar A. and Eckel P. (2008). Advancing diversity agendas on campus: examining transactional and transformational presidential

leadership styles. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(4), 379–405.
Yukl G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership

Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305.

Embodied leadership, including charismatic part 2
Calás M. B. (1993). Deconstructing charismatic leadership: Re-reading Weber from the darker side, The Leadership Quarterly, 4(3-4),

Harding, N., Lee, H., Ford, J., and Learmonth, M. (2011). Leadership and Charisma: A desire that cannot speak its name? Human

Relations, 64(7), 927–949.
Hassard J., Holliday R. and Willmott H. (2000) Body and organization. London: SAGE.
Sinclair A. (2005). Body Possibilities in Leadership, Leadership, 1(4), 387–406.
Sinclair A. (2013). A material dean, Leadership, 9(3), 436–443.
Sinclair, A. (2009). Seducing Leadership: Stories of Leadership Development. Gender, Work and Organization, 16(2), 266–284.

Leadership and Difference
Gender, work and organization. (journal).
Alvesson M. and Billing Y. D. (2009) Understanding gender and organizations. Los Angeles, California: Sage.
Billing Y. D. and Alvesson M. (1989). Four ways of looking at women and leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 5(1), 63–80.
Courtney S. J. (2014). Inadvertently queer school leadership amongst lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) school leaders, Organization, 21

(3), 383–399.
Eagly, A.H. and Chin, J.L. (2010). Diversity and Leadership in a Changing World. The American Psychologist, 65(3), 216–224.
Fassinger, R.E., Shullman, S.L., and Stevenson, M.R. (2010). Toward an Affirmative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Leadership

Paradigm. The American Psychologist, 65(3), 201–215.
Page, M. (2011). Gender Mainstreaming — Hidden Leadership? Gender, Work & Organization, 18(3), 318–336.
Katila, S., and Eriksson, P. (2013). He is a Firm, Strong‐Minded and Empowering Leader, but is She? Gendered Positioning of Female and

Male CEOs. Gender, Work & Organization, 20(1), 71–84.
Muhr, S.L. (2011). Caught in the gendered machine – on the masculine and feminine in cyborg leadership. Gender, Work & Organization,

18(3), 337–357.
Muhr, S.L., and Sullivan, K. (2013). “None so queer as folk”: Gendered expectations and transgressive bodies in leadership. Leadership,

9(3), 416–435.
Ospina, S., Su, C. (2009). Weaving Color Lines: Race, Ethnicity, and the Work of Leadership in Social Change Organizations. Leadership,

5(2), 131–170.
Sinclair, A., and Evans, M. (2015). Difference and Leadership. In: Carroll, B., Ford, J., and Taylor, S. (eds.) (2015). Leadership:

Contemporary critical perspectives. London: Sage, pp. 130–149.

Category: Essay

About the Author (Author Profile)