Traditional Perspectives on Leadership in a Commercial Bank

Subject: Leadership Styles
Pages: 2
Words: 323
Reading time:
2 min
Study level: Master

The traditional perspectives on leadership are based on various theories. They have advantages and disadvantages; however, some of them are more appropriate for different organizations.

One such theory is a transformational leadership theory, which is evident to a certain extent in the organization under discussion – a commercial bank. Transformational leadership concerns creating positive changes in the followers to achieve extraordinary outcomes (Odumeru and Ifeanyi, 2013, p. 256). Marion et al. (2016, p. 244) name that “an ability to empower others.” The first advantage of that perspective would be an opportunity for the followers for constant personal progress. (Tourish, 2014). In addition, when employees change positively, the organization does, as well. (Tourish, 2014). Finally, transformational leadership provides the potential to overcome the set goals and reach higher results.

On the other hand, this theory has some serious disadvantages. First, transformational leadership is hedonistic and loses to the leadership perspectives that concern altruistic leader behavior (Dinh, 2014, p. 17). Another disadvantage is that such theory implies that managers focus on employees’ personalities rather than required situational attributions (Islam, 2014, p. 95). Lastly, transformational constructs lose to others in such parameters as extra effort and variance in effectiveness (Verlage, Rowold, and Schilling, 2012, p. 77). These disadvantages are significant for any organization, especially a commercial one. The transformational leadership theory is partly evident in the commercial bank under discussion, being a fraction of a combination of authoritative, democratic, and transformational styles.

Meanwhile, the authoritative leadership theory appears reasonably practical according to some primary verities regarding leadership itself. For instance, Northouse (2013, p. 5) states that ‘without influence, leadership does not exist.’ Scott (2018, p. 2) mentions that understanding leadership structure is required to enhance organizational effectiveness. Additionally, the definition of success is needed for leadership to be effective (Latham, 2017). Everything mentioned above is the reason for choosing an authoritative leadership perspective. It has a strong influence and precise notion of both leadership and success.

Reference List

Dinh, J. E. (2014) ‘Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives, The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), pp. 36-62. Web.

Islam, G. (2014) ‘Leadership as a Dominant Cultural Myth: A Strain-Based Perspective on Leadership Approaches’, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(3), pp. 91-103, Web.

Latham, J. R. (2017) ‘Leadership for quality and innovation: challenges, theories, and a framework for future research, Quality Management Journal, 21(1), pp. 11-15. Web.

Marion, R. et al. (2016) ‘Informal leadership, interaction, cliques and productive capacity in organizations: a collectivist analysis’, The Leadership Quarterly, 27(2), pp. 242-260. Web.

Northouse, P. G. (2013) Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Odumeru, J. A. and Ifeanyi, G. O. (2013) ‘Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership Theories: Evidence in Literature’, International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(2), pp. 355-361. Web.

Scott, C. P. R. (2018) ‘The impact of implicit collective leadership theories on the emergence and effectiveness of leadership networks in teams’, Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), pp. 464-481. Web.

Tourish, D. (2014) ‘Leadership, more or less? A processual, communication perspective on the role of agency in leadership theory’, Leadership, 10(1), pp. 79-98. Web.

Verlage, H., Rowold, J. and Schilling, J. (2012) ‘Through different perspectives on leadership: comparing the full range leadership theory to implicit leadership theories, Journal of Organizational Learning & Leadership, 10(2), pp. 68-95. Web.