Transformational
leadership is such an attractive idea that it has become a catch phrase
for any goal envisioned by any leader. The concept has certainly
proved to be rich tilling ground for scores of theorists since James M. Burns
first brought the idea of transforming leadership to prominence in his 1978
seminal work. Many of these theorists, such as Joseph Rost, have argued for a
central definition of leadership to guide scholarly
inquiry on the managerial nuances of leading an organization. Others, like
Bernard Bass, have explored the internal psychological mechanisms that influence
the transformational affect leaders have on their organizations. Nearly all of
this study has shed light on the interplay between leaders and followers and has
mapped out the factors that push and pull on this highly variable relationship.
Yet, I cannot help but to think that transformational leadership [or
transforming leadership as Burns referred to it] cannot be understood outside the direct moral context that Burns placed it
in. Admittedly, neither Rost nor Bass tried to separate transformational leadership from moral leadership. However, a good deal of the
later literature on leadership has eroded the original moral context of
transformational leadership by focusing on how to do leadership rather than how
to be the moral agent that transformational leadership requires.
In the book Leaders as Communicators
and Diplomats, Paul Houston made this moral leadership connection and touched
a nerve with me by comparing the diplomatic authority of a superintendent with
the moral authority of a minister. As a life-long church goer, I have listened
to a lot of preachers. It has always
impressed me how a good preacher can bring
moral guidance from the word of God to his congregation in a way that steps on everyone’s toes Sunday morning then turn around and minister to those same
pride-wounded believers when they need the love of God in their
daily lives. Clearly, this pastoral relationship is strong when it is based in trust and mutual respect. Equally clear is the reality that the bonds of such a
relationship are weak when trust is broken or mutual needs are neglected.
A healthy
clerical leadership can move a church member to a more pious life, Equally so, a public school administrator can practice moral
leadership and bring transforming leadership to the transactional context of public schooling. Burns roughly defined moral leadership
as leadership that meets the needs of followers for the purpose of making more
leaders; who might, in turn, evolve into moral agents of change themselves. To
me, this moral leadership is a practice of ministering in a way
that reinforces the moral contract between leader and follower. Any less
purpose in leading may be good and
beneficial, but cannot transform the relationship because it does not mutually
press for anything greater than what is needed in the here and now.
Paraphrasing Paul
Houston’s language, I see myself as a minister of democratic culture. I am
entrusted with the education of my friends and neighbors’ most precious
treasure; and the school I build for those little treasures is going to mold
the men and women they become. By holding fast to this moral contract with the
families I serve, I will support them, encourage them and even challenge them
in ways that move us collectively into the higher purpose of building a
democratic society for our children.
That future society must be ready to meet the
unknown challenges of the future. And, nothing in this metaphor guarantees success
for me or any individual follower; or another leader. Failure might be the outcome
of any well-intended act of moral leadership. But, fearing failure would be an immoral act for the transforming leader.
