Running Header: MODULE 05 READING ESSAY

MODULE 05 READING ESSAY: Transformational & Participation Leadership

Loren Smitley

Arizona State University

OGL 343 - Module 05

April 16, 2022

MODULE 05 READING ESSAY
2

MODULE 05 READING ESSAY: Transformational & Participation Leadership

Prompt #1

According to Thompson, L. (2018) leadership paradox is a phenomenon where teams

have a need for leaders, however the presence of leaders frustrates the natural self-governance of

the teams.

There are a couple of potential difficulties that I can see for a leader who is trying to

implement a “participative management” leadership style in a newly formed group or team. The

first thing that stands out in my mind is that newly formed teams or groups may not understand

the mechanics of governance within the team or group. I think this puts the leader in a position

that requires a more intrusive leadership style to help the team discover its natural order in

getting things accomplished. I think that because of this members of the newly formed team or

group would naturally develop an expectation that the leader is responsible for directing and

solving activities for the team or group. The other complication I think that would add to the

abrasiveness in establishing a “participative management” leadership style, is that newly formed

teams or groups do not have an established familiarity, nor the potentially associated trust,

between its members. I think this drives them to reach out to the leader of the group or team

more as the leader is naturally made more public which leads to more trust in the leader than in

other members of the group or team that have not been introduced or interacted with yet.

According to Thompson (2018) there are three major behaviors associated with

transformational leadership; they are charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized

consideration. Thompson (2018) states that transformational leaders use these behaviors to cause
MODULE 05 READING ESSAY
3

change within the organizations that they actively demonstrate citizenship in. This positive

citizenship within the organization helps members of the organization become comfortable and

trusting with the leaders of the organization which Thompson (2018) states naturally drives

greater conscientiousness and agreeableness within the organization. In contrast to this

“Transactional Leadership”, which is characterized by the reinforcement or reward for completed

tasks by the team’s leader, instills a natural competitive atmosphere or relationship between

members within the team because reward from the leader is based on products delivered by the

individual. This results in a psychological contract between the member and leader but does not

encourage a communal participation within the organization.

Some personal experiences I had in my own career draw a clear difference between

“Transformational Leadership” and “Transactional Leadership”. I will say though from my own

personal experiences every leader-subordinate relation starts with what Thompson (2018)

described as a psychological contract, a basic idea that a leader wants this and a subordinate is

responsible to provide it for an expected or established payback.

A good example that stands out in my mind was when I was transferred to a new team to

be the leader. The previous leader was strictly transactional in his interactions with the team.

There was a fairly new member on that team who showed up to work and did as he was directed

but when you looked at his professional development it became evident that the member did not

have a personal commitment to getting better or being a “citizen” of the team. Our relationship

started out transactional but as I introduced myself, encouraged him to push past what he thought

his limits were, publicly recognized his talents and accomplishments, and personally participated

in the team activities that were not in my “personal psychological contract” it made a huge
MODULE 05 READING ESSAY
4

positive impact on him. After a year he had become actively invested not only in the team but the

organization as well and was one of the most influential amongst his peers and supervisors.

Prompt #2

Of the four practices presented by Thompson (2018), for implementing the “participative

management” leadership style, the two that stood out most to me were “Task Delegation” and

“Organizational Involvement”. Task delegation is a concept that I think is promoted often

enough and even frequently adopted, but I do not think it is ever really completed as designed.

The idea is that authority to act on behalf of the organization can be pushed down to lower levels

of management while still holding the leader’s of the organization overall responsible for the

outcome. I also believe that this naturally ties into the organization involvement practice. From

what I have seen of “Task Delegation” is that it is generally an organizational policy, however

the trust needed to cater such a practice between leaders, managers, and subordinates is usually

not in place when they try to implement “Task Delegation”. I think this naturally leads to the

corrosion of the original intent of this practice and subordinates often feel distrusted and

incompetent when leaders fail to respect the original intent of task delegation. From what I have

seen and experienced in my career leaders struggle or fail to respect the intent of “Task

Delegation” because they do not know the members they are delegating to; this causes a natural

tendency to be suspicious or nervous because they are still responsible for the outcome. I think if

the organization worked to synergize “Task Delegation” with “Organizational Involvement” they

would see this rift close as the relations between organizational leaders and subordinates were

strengthened and maybe even established as both parties gained knowledge and experience about

each other.
MODULE 05 READING ESSAY
5

I personally have always been a hands-on type of character so my personal experiences

with “participative management” have usually devolved into me asking forgiveness after a

mission success because I did not brief the upper chain of command on my planned intentions

(again the trust issue I spoke about earlier). The biggest thing I learned from such experiences is

that what Thompson (2018) coined as “Participative Management” is a two way street and that

actions must be considered from both sides of the spectrum with the intent of fostering trust and

empowering each other which in turn will lead to a better equilibrium of internal power and

organizational capability.
MODULE 05 READING ESSAY
6

Reference:

Thompson, L. L. (2018). Making the team: A guide for managers. (6th Ed.). Pearson.
New York, NY.