The paper “ Different Types of Leadership, Yukl's Three Behaviours, and Criticism of Current Theory on Transactional Leadership” is a thoughtful example of a literature review on the management. Karl Emil Maximilian "Max" Weber, the German sociologist, who lived between 1864 to 1920, classified leaders into three categories - traditional leaders, bureaucratic leaders, and charismatic leaders. Nearly six decades after his death, Burns (1978) came up with another classification: transformational and transactional leaders. In essence, Burns's transformational leadership was the same as Weber's charismatic leadership. Since then, a lot of research has gone into all three types: charismatic, transformational and transactional (Weber, 1994, pp.
1– 28). Charismatic leadership: Weber's definition of charismatic leadership is this: “ resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him". According to Weber Jesus was a charismatic leader. Even Hitler, the dictator, had some traits that were charismatic. Charismatic leaders possess exceptional qualities and are normally followed with god-like devotion. Transformational leadership: Burns’ definition for transformational leadership is like this: "Transformational leadership recognizes and exploits an existing need or demand of a potential follower and looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower” .
Transformational leadership exhibits some unique characteristics. Leaders belonging to this group use emotions to motivate their followers which lets them act beyond 'exchange relations', a predefined framework of action. They are proactive and raise the expectation levels in their followers. They are highly inspirational in nature and provide intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration and exert on their follower's idealized influence of high order.
These leaders have greater visions, possess management and rhetorical skills and use emotions to develop bonds with their followers. Considered as highly motivational, they imbibe in their followers the powers of setting goals, reaching to them and in the process giving up self-interest. Transformational leadership has been studied extensively and Bass and Avolio (1990, pp. 231– 272) and others have stated that they have certain unique qualities in order to be able to be transformational and the same include: clarity of purpose, clarity of values, persistence, love for work, desire for learning perpetually, enthusiasm, effective communication, courage, risk-taking capabilities, and love for work. Transactional leadership: Transactional leadership, on the other hand, does possess leadership qualities but lacks being transformational.
This leadership is adept at honoring mutual agreements but only that does not befit the qualities of being a mover and a shaker. These leaders are effort driven and reward-driven. They are the people who are more comfortable with dealing with the issue in hand rather than the visioning of a different future. These leaders are sort of manual-driven i. e., they follow a specific path of inducement, then reward, then sanction or even punishment so that they can control followers.
They do not have inherent powers to motivate; instead, they use the magic wand of the reward system to encourage their followers to set and accomplish goals. They bargain reinforcements with rewards (Bycio, Hackett, Allen, 1995, pp. 468– 478). Key differences between eachCharismatic leadership is aura-driven in nature; it is an embedded, probably in-born feature in the leader. Transformational leadership recognizes potential and exploits that in the desired direction. And transactional leadership is unlike both above as such leadership is controlling in nature; it uses bait to control followers.
The first two don't use any such thing.