I would have to somewhat disagree.  I think one of the criticisms of both transformational and transactional styles is that they tend to be viewed on a continuum from lesser to greater….which seems like a nice way of saying worse to best.  And, I think they are mutually exclusive.

I think they are mutually exclusive because both require a transaction.  Transactional leadership is pretty much based on an exchange between the leader and the follower.  In essence, the follower is rewarded or punished for some behavior.  It seems that with transformational leadership the there is a transaction, only the currency changes.  Whereas transactional seems to indicate that something concrete is exchanged, transformational indicates that piece of culture, development or personal attention is exchanged.  In the sense that you can only use one “currency” at a time, they are mutually exclusive.  In another sense, in that you can choose, as the leader, which is most appropriate they are not.

Of course, that leads us to the next series of questions: Is one best? Can one work all the time? And, an unstated question is – Are leaders capable of switching styles?  The way in which the second series of questions is formed pushes me to consider both leader actions as contingent.  I think they are contingent on follower, situation and leader.

I tend to think that when transactional leadership is taking place it is more akin to supervision.  The leader has seen or learned of something and action must be taken.  Even as a middle manager in a large agency there were plenty of transactional situations.  But, the choice generally depended on the follower or the situation.  As an example, I can’t see myself employing transformational leadership when directing a skirmish line during a crowd control incident.  On the other hand, it is appropriate, after most straight-forward transactional situations to go back to the follower an employ leadership by having a transformational conversation about why we do what we do.

I was surprised to see a dearth of reference to Barnard in the literature on transformational leadership.  Transformational leadership seems to be a center-piece of what Barnard saw as the function of an executive – the creation of group cohesiveness.  Which brings me to situations were transactional is rarely appropriate.  In my retirement (well, actually retiring from one to take on another – were I am working much harder) I am the president of our local Rotary club.  

We just had a situation wherein two members have started down a destructive path of personality conflict.  If I were still in the police service I would employ transactional leadership to put an immediate stop to the situation.  However, as the leader of a volunteer group I really don’t have transactional leadership as an option.  For a variety of reasons I must bring them together to work on our common goals.  This means having a transformational conversation with both individuals.  It also means that at our next series of meetings I should address conflict in a transformational way by reminding our members why we do what we do. 

Personally, I don’t think that a leader can easily change style.  For me, this is one of the weaknesses of the Hersey and Blanchard model.  Certainly, give time and distance can choose the best option, technique or style to employ, but over the long-run we probably tend to revert to our dominate style.  And, or dominate style probably shades our use of any leadership tool that is outside that style.

So, I guess the whether or not transactional and transformational are mutually exclusive depends!

Click here for more information on: Leadership: Texas Hold 'em Style.