To understand pseudo transformational leadership, we must first understand transformational leadership. In 1978, a sociologist by the name of James Burns came up with the concept of transformational leadership, which attempted to link the roles of leaders and followers (Northouse, 2022, p. 186). Transformational leadership “engage with followers and create a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower” (PSU WC, 2022, L. 10, p. 2) by focusing on their needs and motives to help them reach their full potential (Northouse, 2021, p. 186).
By looking at the Bass model (1985), an extended, revised version of Burns’ work on transformational leadership, we see a slight difference in definition in that Bass suggests that leaders motivate followers to do more than expected by raising their level of consciousness about the “importance and value of specified and idealized goals”, getting them to transcend their own interest for the betterment of the team or organization, and moving them to address higher needs (Northouse, 2021, p. 190, para 5). Based on the model, to be effective in motivating followers to act in ways that support the organization versus themselves, transformational leaders “often have a strong set of values and ideals” that are based on four factors which are:
- Idealized influence (charisma) – This is the emotional element of leadership where the leader acts as a strong role model with high standards of moral and ethical conduct, which followers identify with and try to emulate because of the leader’s ability to provide the vision and mission.
- Inspiration or inspirational motivation – Leaders inspire motivation by communicating high expectations to the followers.
- Intellectual stimulation – Leaders encourage an environment where the followers can be creative and innovative to challenge the beliefs of themselves, the leader, and the organization.
- Individual consideration – Leaders provide a climate that is supportive for the followers and listens carefully to their individual needs.
-(Northouse, 2021, pp. 191-193)
Now that we have a good understanding of what transformational leadership is, we can now focus on why pseudo transformational leadership is considered the destructive side. Pseudo transformational leadership, a term coined by Bass in 1998, looks at transformational leadership but through the lens of transforming followers in a negative way (Northouse, 2022, p. 187). Pseudo transformational leadership describes a leader as “self-consumed, exploitive, and power-oriented, with warped moral values” which is considered personalized leadership because the leaders focus on their own interests over the interest of others (Northouse, 2022, p. 187, para 3). Unlike transformational leadership which highlights four factors that are effective in uplifting followers and motivating them to higher highs, pseudo transformational leadership is self-serving, doesn’t encourage independent thought, and has little caring for others (p.187). This form of leadership could be considered destructive because it threatens the welfare of followers because of the disregard for the common good (p.187). Leaders essentially leave the followers worst off than they were because the leader uses leadership for personal gain, violates their basic human rights, and plays off their fears to motivate (p. 431).
An example of a pseudo transformational leader is Adolf Hitler. Hitler was able to express a clear vision with a great sense of passion and was able to inspire his followers to do great things, but the self-interest in ruling the European empire led to a lot of deaths for his followers (Robertson, 2015).
References:
Northouse, P.G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 9th Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2022). PSYCH 485 Lesson 10: Transformational leadership. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2177519/modules/items/33991759
Robertson, D. M. (2015, Jan 5). Pseudo-transformational leaders. DMR Publications. Retrieved from https://www.dmrpublications.com/2015/01/pseudo-transformational-leaders/
As I was reading this post, I genuinely thought of the Nazis as a follower group that was influenced by psuedo-transformational leadership. I think that is an excellent example for this, and you did a great job painting the picture of what both transformational and psuedo-transformational leadership is. I think something important I take from this information is that both require a great deal of charisma. As much as we hate to think of Adolf Hitler as a charismatic, persuasive leader, he in fact, was… He was able to convince masses that his cause was just and right, even though he was committing horrible, hateful acts. He was so charismatic, that his followership followed him blindly and was greatly motivated to do his biddings. The big difference is in the last two points. He did not intellectualize his followers, giving them the ability to challenge beliefs and him as a leader. Hitler instead released much propaganda that kept his followership in the dark, and pidgeon-holed the belief. He took away any chance of becoming intellectualized and funneled what information his country was allowed to absorb. He also was not exactly sensitive to his followers needs… but he pretended as if he was. Everything he did was supposed to be in their best interest, and in the Aryan race’s best interest. In reality, this was all a ploy to get his followers. He did not care and support them as he said he did, but acted upon selfish wants. This is what makes Hitler such a problematic leadership character. It would be easier to say he was hated by his people, but unfortunately many were fooled by his charisma. I feel as though this choice as an example is so great for that reason. The word “psuedo” means “false,” “a sham,” “pretended.” This is exactly what he was and what he did… a sham, in order to get power. I think your post was great and very thought provoking. Thank you for your thoughts!