Instructions

1.Briefly summarize (Critic Analisis) the most important ideas raised by the author in the information below

2.Discuss the implications or importance of the ideas presented for human resources management. Refer to theory and ideas

From transactional leadership to transformational leadership: implications for organizational change

Virtual Journal Catholic University of the North, Year 2013. Number 39, May-August 154

1. Introduction

The importance of organizational change in the development, evolution and durability of companies has been widely recognized. In recent decades organizational change has been studied from various theoretical and disciplinary perspectives, which has allowed the consolidation of models underlied by a particular way of conceiving the company.There is broad consensus that the survival of organizations depends to a large extent on their possibility of change, their ability to adapt to the demands of the environment, and their flexibility to address uncertainty, which in turn depends on how organizations are led. Traditionally, organizational change models have been formulated from linear paradigms, focused mainly on planning, in which the role of the leader acquires a predominant place, because it is he who must face change with the intention of controlling it and restoring stability to the organization, by guiding actions to achieve previously established results.On the other hand, current models, formulated from the System Theories, offer a broader and more comprehensive possibility of taking on and promoting change. From this theoretical perspective, it is assumed that the organization is a complex system in which change is the result of the interaction that occurs between the agents that make up the system, in which the leader is only a promoter of change, a generator of what Heifetz, Grashow and Linsky (2009) call, a productive imbalance in which the pursuit of stability is renounced. From this perspective, the leadership process that mobilizes the system is prioritized, rather than the concept of a leader focused on its role, as has traditionally been proposed.Thus, understanding organizational change today implies on the one hand to recognize the characteristics that are its own and to consider the evolution of the models that have been structured from the different conceptual approaches, and on the other, to describe based on the theoretical advances of complex systems, what would be the characteristics of leadership that demand the current conditions of the environment in which organizations are immersed. Based on the above, it is postulated that traditional leadership, more oriented towards a transactional style (focused on the task), may be insufficient to facilitate organizational change and that given its characteristics, transformational leadership, could favor the adaptation of the organization - as a system - to the current conditions of the environment.

2. Characteristics of organizational change

The change in itself has characteristics that must be considered, because regardless of the paradigm with which it is addressed, they exert influence over the organization. Del Prado (2007) describes three of them: the speed, magnitude and nature of change. The speed, the author notes, is important in that it affects the level of anxiety that workers experience in the face of the change and resistance that they may present, affecting their response and subsequent adaptation to the new organizational conditions. Evidence has shown that the speed of change today is increasing, implying that possible solutions to address them will have a shorter duration, a phenomenon that the author has called the problem of the solution lifecycle. The speed of change is related to what Boga and Ensari (2009) call the frequency of change and claim that the constant adaptation to new behaviors derived from each change initiative can potentially generate fatigue and negatively influence employees, increasing resistance to it. Frequent changes sometimes relate to short-term achievements, however, the long-term effect they have on people's perception and adaptability is not evaluated. Leaders must find the right balance between these gains and their effects.

The magnitude of the change consists of three elements: volume, frequency and complexity (Del Prado, 2007). The first refers to the number of changes to be faced, not only in terms of units but in terms of diversity; that is, in the same period of time changes are generated in different domains what would be the case of new technological developments, processes of economic integration in a region and acquisitions of companies by foreign investors. The frequency in this case refers to the limited permanence of a particular state or response that has arisen as a result of a particular change; an example of this element is the time between the launch of a new product and the emergence of a number of substitutes. The complexity finally refers to the degree of variables that make up and/or affect a particular change; the case of economic integrations allows to illustrate the scope of the latter element since this type of integrations involves social, political, economic, legal, cultural, environmental aspects, etc... Nature refers to two central aspects whose basis is how change is perceived by individuals, which in turn will relate to the employee's ability and conduct to assume it (Del Prado, 2007). The first aspect relates to the worker's perception of change as a positive or negative thing in his life.The second revolves around whether or not the individual considers the change to be significant, which when analyzed simultaneously with the above aspect will also determine the individual's ability to deal with it as well as his disposition before the mime. Other important features that must be contemplated and related to those raised above are: transformational, incremental, unplanned and planned (Schermerhorn, Hunt & Osborn, 2004). The first corresponds to those situations in which changes arise at critical times and have the potential to generate large changes in fundamental aspects of the organization, leading to the total or partial transformation of the organization, which has to do with the Nature and Magnitude of change described above. The incremental change, on the other hand, relates to the speed of change proposed by Del Prado (2007) and is considered by Schermerhorn et al., (2004) as the most frequent and least "traumatic", since it is inherent in the natural evolution of the organization. This type of change reviews and renews the company's operating schemes, which brings with it innovation in technology, processes and systems. Finally, the planned and unplanned change has to do with the existence or not of a plan to generate and/or deal with it, which does not guarantee that events and actions can happen as planned, among other reasons why the change itself contains, to a greater or lesser extent, certain degrees of uncertainty, which will affect the resistance it generates in the members of the organization.It is proposed that the effectiveness of leadership in promoting organizational change depends on how it is assumed. Assuming the change from the traditional view, the emphasis would be more focused on the subject and the leading one-way interaction follower, characteristics that would demarcate more transactional leadership. On the other hand, if the current characteristics of the environment are considered, the previous vision of leadership would be insufficient, as it is necessary to emphasize the leadership processes that affect in various ways and in multiple directions to the whole system, enhancing its dynamic adaptation to the environment. These positions will be discussed below.

3. Planned Change: Emphasis on the Leader's Role

Generally speaking, planned change models are intended to ensure a desired result. Such planning includes the mobilization of structures and processes in such a way as to minimize uncertainty, maintain stability and ensure the results provided by leaders who are considered key to the success of organizational change. It should be clarified that from these models,

structural transformations should be part of the planning done by the leader (Hannan & Freeman 1984). This conception of change is rooted in the classic idea of Lewin (1951) who claimed that the change should be planned and not an accidental process, according to it, Lippitt, Watson and Westley (1958) emphasized the importance of promoting and maintaining change with communication plans and permanent feedback with the working group before, during and after the change. It is generally assumed that planned and expected changes are more likely to succeed in organizations, as they are expected to impact both individual and organizational performance (Zeira & Avedisian, 1989). Lewin's proposal (1951) makes it clear to see his stance on organizational change; he suggested that this should occur in stages, which he called 1) Defrosting, 2) Emergence of new patterns and 3) Refreezing. As a step forward from this same approach, other models of planned change emerged such as Tushman, Newman and Nadler (1988), who noted that organizational leaders must plan for change and develop it through three phases: 1) contextualization of the strategy course, 2) motivation to the people of the organization with passion and optimism, and 3) effective and efficient distribution of the moral and material resources that stakeholders require to facilitate transformation. A variation of the methodology of planned change was proposed by Whittington, Pettigrew and Conyon (1999) which is primarily aimed at improving the efficiency and productivity of the members of the organization (very common in models focused on business operations and processes) through the strategic restructuring of the company to ensure its optimization. From this perspective, the total quality models were developed, within which are Ishikawa's which is oriented to the prevention of defective products, and Taguchi that integrates quality concepts, product design and production process and reengineering. These models, typical of the 1990s, also focused on optimizing the possibilities of using information technologies in organizations to increase their efficiency. Despite the existence of these and many other models, there is not yet one, which by itself manages to respond to all the problems or situations of the current organization, therefore, some authors say that it is advisable to take from the different models the tools or elements that allow the organization to better face the challenges of the future (Raineri , 2001) From this perspective, it is the work of the organizational leader to plan for change and demonstrate that change is necessary. In this process, leaders should also assess and anticipate the potential resilience that can be generated, which will undoubtedly depend on workers' commitment to organizational processes and their sense of control with regard to the opportunities, resources and skills needed to take on change (Ajzen, 1991).As can be seen, from this perspective it is emphasized in the role of the leader and his responsibility as an agent of change, because it is he who must ensure a positive result (Kotter, 1995). In line with this approach, among the management practices that favor the processes of change, is to communicate and integrate the connections between the new behaviors, processes and structure on the successes of the organization, measure and celebrate the small achievements to consolidate improvements that support the vision, all of which can be achieved with a style of leadership of a transactional nature , as you'll see later.

4. Facilitate the emergence of change and self-organization: emphasis on leadership processes

Leading change is one of the most important roles of the leader today. Existing theories of change are insufficient as they are always different, as are the circumstances in which the changes are generated. In this sense the change rather than an action directed and planned by the leader becomes a permanent possibility of transformation that allows the adaptation of the organization to the conditions of the environment, in which the leader develops processes that allow him to lead, rather than direct the change. It is now recognized that changes in the environment are faster and more unpredictable, and that they in turn require organizations better adaptability. Changes in the environment usually occur unexpectedly (permeating society in general, the economy, industry, business functions among others) and in many cases organizations are not prepared to take their effects. The management of change then implies that the leader promotes processes that ensure the flexibility of the organization to endure in such conditions (Hruska, Rasic & Bakovic, 2010), which is particularly important when you consider that the limited ability to adapt to changes has devastating effects on organizational performance and can even threaten its existence (Bovey & Hede , 2001).In this perspective, traditional models of change planning are inadequate because in today's world there is greater uncertainty, less possibility of control and a multiplicity of variables of different order that can affect the results of a process of change. Today it is recognized that organizations are dynamic nonlinear and potentially chaotic systems, which are undergoing frequent changes, and that the leadership of these organizations must be flexible to respond to them (Thietart & Forgues, 1995). To assume that changes are inevitable and to understand how to deal with them effectively is perhaps the most important challenge for the leaders of this century (Bovey & Hede, 2001). Paton andMacCalman (2006) suggest that the process of analyzing and guiding strategic change processes in organizations involves broadening the traditional vision and assuming that these are open systems composed of a number of interdependent elements, linked together, which in turn make up systems and subsystems. This requires overcoming the fragmented vision of change and considering the various sets of events, activities, language practices, emotions and reactions that help explain its results (Martins & Beaumont, 2001).This current vision of organizational change surpasses the traditional mechanistic approach and responds to a modern vision of administration, which assumes that stillness and resistance to change is a precursor to death (Pascal, Millemann & Gioja, 2002). From this perspective, the organization assumes itself as a complex system that exhibits life, that is, behaves according to the same laws of nature, which is self-organized naturally and spontaneously and in which the leader, in its interaction with the other agents of the system, influences to emerge new adaptive states, which guarantee its survival. In this sense, the leader can intentionally bring about the change, but inevitably from his interaction with the other agents that make up it and the environment, new unplanned and even spontaneous states will emerge that he will not be able to control but if to visualize, to guide the transformation of the system.This goes from the traditional emphasis of the organizational leader focused on their traits, behaviors and characteristics that make them different from others (micro-level), to studying the effect of leadership processes on organizational change (macro-level) (Glynn & DeJordy, 2010), so the leader who plans change, confronts and contains it, passes to leadership as a process of change in itself , in which the primary role of the leader is to energize him.

Based on the above, it is feasible to understand leadership today, as a process that enhances change, that is, that encourages the emergence of dynamics that allow the organization to adapt permanently and dynamically to changes, which occur naturally, when the system has reached adequate levels of self-organization (Schnedier, 2002; Boney, 2003). The concept of emergency has important connotations for the understanding of leadership, as it rethinks the widely disseminated and accepted idea that leaders have as their main function the control and determination of change, on the contrary, from this perspective, the main role of leaders is related to the search and strengthening of the possibilities and conditions for the system to self-organize and thus thus , the emergence of new adaptive patterns (Goldstein, 2007).As Jennings and Dooley (2007) point out, the leader does not have the ability to control emerging dynamics in the system but can "catalyze" them to encourage adaptation. In this sense adaptation suggests that systems are in constant transformation and that although the results are not predictable, they can be foreseen as desirable (Bussolari & Goodell, 2009).From this perspective, leadership is recognized as a highly complex phenomenon, whose explanation focused on the individuals who exercise it is clearly insufficient, there is already an approach that is acquiring important academic development that has been called the Theory of Complex Systems in Leadership (TSCL), which is based on a non-linear and inclusive paradigm in which it is assumed that the influence of leaders is not limited to direct action , intentional and deliberate on organizational change, but such influence is inevitably indirect, diffuse and even spontaneous by virtue of the interactions generated in the system (Jennings & Dooley, 2007). Thus, leadership is understood as an ongoing process of adaptation, in which leaders are constituted as true facilitators of change, through the empowerment of relationships and interactions (many of them diffuse) that arise among the different agents that make up the organization (Boney, 2003).Understanding the relationship between change and leadership necessarily involves analyzing the collaborators, because they are the ones who through their interaction with the other agents of the system, favor or inhibit the processes of change. Therefore, the reaction of workers towards change becomes a critical issue to promote change (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993; Piderit, 2000). because its resistance can not only seriously impede the processes of change (Miller, Johnson & Grau, 1994; Piderit, 2000) but negatively affects his level of job satisfaction and psychological well-being, increasing absenteeism and turnover (Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish, & DiFonso, 2004; Miller et al., 1994); therefore, the study of the psychological processes involved in the processes of organizational change have been gaining special relevance (Oreg, 2006; Van Dam, 2003).The above requires the leader to clearly know the organization, that he understands culture, beliefs, values, climate and organizational identity, in order to build links at its different levels and dimensions, that enhance communication and strengthen creativity and innovation. There is no doubt that context characteristics such as leadership style and organizational climate can affect the implementation of change and as a consequence influence how members of the organization react to it (Van Dam, Oreg & Schyns, 2008).Trust-based interaction becomes an essential factor in achieving the flexibility required by the system to transform and adapt to the permanent and unpredictable demands of the environment by virtue of its position within the system, the sector, and the context in general. Then the question arises, how could the behaviour of the managers be that allows them to lead the change in the current conditions? On the one hand it can be said that change-oriented leaders tend to better cope with unstable environments, because they inspire, motivate, stimulate intellectually, are sensitive to

variations of the context and are able to take risks (Waldman, Ramirez, House & Puranam, 2001) and on the other hand, the integrity of the leader and trust in it become indispensable factors (Li, 2005; Oreg, 2006).Distrust or suspicion can increase uncertainty - usual in change processes - and hence the resistance of collaborators (Bovey & Hede, 2001). The leader is expected to notice that the anxiety and tension that members of the organization experience in the face of change will depend to a large extent on leadership processes, as these will potentially affect the change being seen as a necessity or as a threat to be avoided (Cummings & Worley, 2001). Therefore Krackhardt and Stern (1988) point out that organizational changes must necessarily be accompanied by changes in relations between leaders and collaborators, as they require the subsequent generation and consolidation of new behaviors. In line with the above, participatory leadership has been shown to promote change in that it encourages acceptance, commitment and acquisition of a positive attitude towards it (Sagie & Koslowski, 1996; Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Strauss, 1998).

5. Leadership styles and organizational change

Based on all of the above, in trying to shape a current leadership style, oriented towards change in organizations - understood as complex systems - it could be said that transformational leadership would be more in line with this new perspective of change, since one of its fundamental characteristics is to promote the development of competences in the organization, in which each contributes to organizational change (Seidman & Mc Cauley , 2011). While transformational leaders have the ability to change the perspective of their collaborators, motivate and inspire (Burns, 1978), transactional leaders reward subordinates for following the given orientations (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Burns, 1978), the latter, more in line with the traditional vision of change.It should be clarified that the behaviors of transactional and transformational leadership are not mutually exclusive, in fact they can be presented simultaneously in management practices without affecting a characteristic leadership style. The role of the transactional leader would be more in line with traditional models of planned change, in which leaders plan and generate strategies to ensure compliance with the processes that will lead to the desired result. To create an instructional and managerial style can be more functional. Likewise, from traditional paradigms, rewarding expected behaviors is common when change is oriented towards the search for efficiency through the maximum reduction of risk, which is reinforced through recognition to people when the goals pre-established by the leader are achieved, fundamental characteristics of this type of leadership (Bass, 1985), because the dynamics of the leading-follower relationship within the transactional leadership implies an explicit exchange or an implicit negotiation between some and others (Den Hartog, Van Muijen & Koopman, 1997). This way of assuming change may be insufficient today, in that it offers a fragmented view of the organization, in which all the factors involved are unknown, directly, and indirectly with the change. Transactional leadership focuses mainly on motivating workers through a relationship mediated by their position within the organization (heads to subordinates), based on contingent behaviors based on the clarity of tasks that according to their results will be rewarded or punished (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass & Riggio, 2006).In contrast, transformational leaders go beyond tasks, making them more effective in times of crisis, an inescapable factor in change processes in that it favors adaptation (Boal & Byrson, 1988). The charismatic qualities of these leaders are exacerbated at a time when organizations are undergoing important transformation processes that potentially compromise the survival or development of the organization (Yukl, 2002). During times of change and uncertainty this charismatic leader

From transactional leadership to transformational leadership: implications for organizational change

and visionary, manages to influence the perception of success on the part of the collaborators and this in turn, increases the motivation, dedication and commitment of the collaborators (Pillai, 1996), particularly important aspects in times of change characterized by instability and the limited possibility of prediction. On the other hand, these leaders tend to better channel people's uncertainty and fears as they instill confidence and generate enthusiasm through vision and achievement of goals; possess charisma (idealized influence), intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and inspiration (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006).Another aspect worth highlighting regarding organizational change in relation to transformational leadership is that the behaviors associated with this style of leadership stimulate the capacity for innovation, through the promotion of change and permanent transformation (Jung, 2003; Oke, Munshi & Walumbwa, 2009); in several studies it has been found that transformational leaders have a greater effect to stimulate and promote innovation in the organization than other styles of leadership (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Bass, 1985; Harris, 1985; Roberts, 1985).Finally, unlike transactional leaders who recognize the importance of organizational culture to stimulate innovation as part of continuous change, transformational leaders change culture by promoting commitment, loyalty, and motivation for innovation at the individual and group level.They manage to promote environments for innovation through the interpretation of symbols and organizational culture (Jaskyte, 2004; Martins & Martins, 2002). Table 1 provides a summary of the characteristics of change from a classical and systemic perspective in relation to transactional and transformational leadership.Table 1. Organizational change in relation to the perspective of transactional and transformational leadership.

Transformational Transactional Organizational Change

Emphasis on the role of leader (Subject) Emphasis on leadership (process) Planned and intentional process Considers spontaneous and targeted processes Deliberate organization for the achievement of objectives.Self-organization for adaptation Avoid uncertainty Accept uncertainty Micro-level Macro-level Rigid and stable System flexible and changing Centralized power Distributed power Vertical linear influence Diffuse influence and in multiple ways Manage diversity Power diversity Negotiates innovation generation Favors environments conducive to innovation

6. Conclusions

Organizational change, understood from the traditional paradigm, prioritizes the possibility of predicting expected results through planning and control. From this perspective, a relatively stable environment is presumed, in which the results of change can be highly predictable, through mainly transactional leadership, where motivation is often more extrinsic and responds to operative and immediat models to achieve organizational results. This approach corresponds to the classic Taylorian conception, in which the role of the leader is prominent in bringing about planned change and containing or avoiding the unplanned, always returning stability to the organization.

From transactional leadership to transformational leadership: implications for organizational change

On the other hand, if the metaphor of the organization is taken as a living system (Morgan, 1998) and the development of system theory is considered, the leadership process in which leaders are promoters and facilitators of change is prioritized, assuming that excess stability produces an ankylation that can affect the survival of the organization. From this perspective stability is not intended, even those who manage to maintain the organization in what Heifetz, et al., (2009) call, a productive imbalance, are considered effective leaders.Arguably the biggest challenge is that leaders succeed in taking on change in a different way, involves abandoning the pretense of total control to achieve rigidly planned goals, which in today's world is becoming less and less likely. The above also requires the assumption of the organization in a more integral way, considering it in all its complexity, in which the intentional action of the leader in addition to having the expected effect, will influence the whole system in various ways, many of them not considered by him leader, but not for it, without consequences. Likewise, the leader's behaviors will generate spontaneous changes by virtue of the inevitable interaction between agents, some of them desirable, others probably won't.From this perspective, transformational leadership may be more appropriate; to enhance change through trust-based interactions, to exercise leadership in fostering the emergence of new states and to consider self-organization as a possibility of the system to survive, that is, to endure on favorable conditions, not only for the organization but also for the broader system - sector, country - to which it belongs.Finally, the development of change models consistent with the perspective of complex adaptive systems, promises to be an approach that is more in line with the conditions in which organizations are immersed today. It suggests the development and validation of new models of change, which prioritizes the skills and competencies required by system actors (including leaders) to enable the generation of effective leadership processes, that is, to enable dynamic adaptation of the system as a fundamental axis of durability.

7. References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681-703.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M, Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2a ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Boal, K. B., & Bryson, J. M. (1988). Charismatic leadership: A phenomenological and structural approach. En J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.). Emerging leadership (pp. 11-28). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Boga, I., & Ensari, N. (2009). The Role of Transformational Leadership and Organizational Change on Perceived Organizational Success. The Psychologist Manager Journal, 12, 235-251.

Boney, C. (2003). From the inside out: an appreciative inquiry into leadership, culture and complexity. Ottawa, Canada: Royal Roads University