0.5 Williams, s., & Jones, f. (july 2009). transformational leadership  (Page 3/4)

Transformational leadership is concerned with the performance of followers and also with developing followers to their fullest potential (Bass&Avolio, 1990a). A. Gregory Stone, Robert F. Russell, and Kathleen Peterson (2003). A. Gregory Stone, Robert F. Russell, and Kathleen Peterson (2003) was of assistance in supporting the current study of the relationship between transformational and servant leadership. The study conducted by Stone et al. (2003) was not based on school leaders, but instead focused on various leaders within organizations. The study proved important in validating the current study because the authors’ purpose was similar to that of the current study. Stone, Russell, and Peterson (2003) compared the difference between transformational and servant leadership. The validity and importance of the study was verified through other studies and articles that used the same characteristics and qualities when describing the two leadership styles (Stone et al. 2003). For example, according to Farling, Stone, and Winston (1999), servant leaders provide vision, gain credibility and trust from followers, and influence others. Comparably, Bass (1985) said transformational leaders transform the personal values of followers to support the vision and goals of the organization by fostering an environment where relationships can be formed and by establishing a climate of trust in which visions can be shared. Within each statement from these different studies, the authors used two characteristics that are important in the conceptual framework of both leadership styles: trust and vision. It was noted that the concepts hold many similarities, and they are complementary theories in many respects. Nonetheless, they ultimately form a distinctly separate theoretical framework of leadership because of one primary difference. The difference is reflected in the following statement by A. Gregory Stone, Robert F. Russell, and Kathleen Peterson (2003):

The principal difference between transformational leadership and servant leadership is the focus of the leader. While transformational leaders and servant leaders both show concern for their followers, the overriding focus of the servant leader is upon service to their followers. The transformational leader has a greater concern for getting followers to engage in and support organizational objectives. (p. 354)

Given the information presented, it appears that both leadership styles have advantages and can bring real change in organizations. The world has become more complicated, and dynamic times require dynamic driven leaders (Williams 1998). Transformational leadership and servant leadership offer conceptual frameworks that may prove beneficial in managing and leading our educational environments during these changing times.

Case study and activity

Transformational leadership can also be an integral part in terms of being an effective leader in terms of eliciting parental involvement in the schools. In 2000, Hamilton Academy was identified by the state as a school that was in desperate need of improvement and was placed under a registration review (Giles, 2008). One example of how transformational leadership could make a positive change in schools was a case study of Hamilton Academy which was a school with low enrollment, a transient student population, and a weak administration with little parental support. Teachers argued that one of the reasons achievement was low was the lack of parental involvement and that the administration had not pursued it. This was a school that was in an urban neighborhood setting and the parents were accustomed to being left out of the school business and they were disillusioned with the school’s leadership. Using the traditional leadership model, a new principal came into a difficult situation and attempted to create strong relationships and a supportive culture for teachers, students, and parents (Giles, 2008). The principal saw that the transformational model was one that could be used not to exclude parents from the school, but to include them. This top down approach was one that designed to specifically address the changing of the culture in the urban neighborhood school (Giles, 2008). The approach coincided with an increase in good relationships with parents and students in which they could see that the principal truly cared about the progress of each individual student. The principal also spent considerable time to make sure the parents had a voice in their children’s education and this allowed them to ease their distrust of the administration (Giles, 2008). The parents were responding well to the principal’s transformational leadership and the expectations that were being put upon their children. Parents of the children positively attributed this change of culture to the leadership of the principal. They remarked that they saw the principal as caring, professional, and someone that communicated well (Giles, 2008). The use of transformational leadership was highly effective in changing the culture inside and outside of the school, all for the benefit of the students and their achievement.