Transactional and Transformational Managers Page 4
Kurt Lewin's Contribution to Change ManagementPage 8
Considering whether transactional and transformational managers need to work side by side for an organization to be successful is an interesting prognosis. This will be discussed in detail within this report. It will highlight the differences between the two management styles and relate them to the author`s department, the Medium Section Mill at Scunthorpe. Through the analysis, it will seek to find justification to the statement, and whether or not there is room for both management styles. The report will also critically analyse Kurt Lewin`s main contribution to change management. There is currently a major capital project ongoing at the Medium Section Mill and so all employees are being affected by change in one way or another. Lewin`s whole change process will be looked at, including Force Field Analysis and the three stages of implementing a successful change, Unfreezing, Changing and Refreezing.
Transactional and Transformational Managers
Like most other companies, Corus has many transactional and transformational managers. Whether this is a good mixture for running a successful organisation is open to opinion and interpretation. In many ways, transformational leadership is not necessarily a complete alternative to the transactional style of management. Transformational leadership is not a substitute for transactional leadership; rather, it can be a complement. Previous research has found that transformational leadership augments the effects of transactional leadership (Avolio, B, J, et al 1988) ` A clear understanding is required of the differences between the two types of management. Transactional Style, Authoritarian.
Managers have a position of authority vested in them by the company, and their subordinates work for them and largely do as they are told. Management style is transactional, in that the manager tells the subordinate what to do, and the subordinate does this not because they are a blind robot, but because they have been promised a reward (at minimum their salary) for doing so`. (http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/articles/manager_leader.htm)
These managers are focused on getting the job done, often within tight constraints of time and money. They recognize that they are subordinates too. This management approach is averse to taking risks. The managers themselves seek to avoid conflict where possible and generally like to keep the workforce happy.
Transformational Style, Leaders.
Transformational managers are usually categorised as leaders. They are prepared to give up formal authoritarian control to attract followers. These people are usually charismatic individuals and are happy moving out of their comfort zone. They interact very well with all types of people, are very enthusiastic, and can soon get others sharing in their vision. Leaders are comfortable with risk and will see routes that others avoid as potential opportunities for advantage and will happily break rules in order to get things done. Table 1. highlights the differences between being a leader and being a manager. This is, of course, an illustrative characterization, and there is a whole spectrum between either ends of these scales along which each person can range.
FocusLeading peopleManaging work
DetailSets direction Plans detail
PowerPersonal charismaFormal authority
ExchangeExcitement for workMoney for work
RiskTakes risksMinimizes risks