Transformational versus transactional styles of cabinet leadership in Australian politics

This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 28 October 2014, At: 06:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Journal of Political SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cajp20

Transformational versus transactional styles of cabinetleadership in Australian politicsAndrew Hede a & Rae Wear ba Sunshine Coast University Collegeb University of Southern QueenslandPublished online: 21 Sep 2007.

To cite this article: Andrew Hede & Rae Wear (1995) Transformational versus transactional styles of cabinet leadership inAustralian politics, Australian Journal of Political Science, 30:3, 469-483, DOI: 10.1080/00323269508402351

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00323269508402351

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cajp20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00323269508402351

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00323269508402351

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Australian Journal of Political Science (1995), Vol.30, pp.469-484

Transformational Versus Transactional Stylesof Cabinet Leadership in Australian Politics

ANDREW HEDE & RAE WEAR

Sunshine Coast University College & University of Southern Queensland

Burns's classic study of leadership distinguished two types of leader. Transformationalleaders are visionaries who are able to persuade followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of a larger good. Transactional leaders, on the other hand, base theirrelationships with followers on an exchange, such as jobs for votes. Thetransformational/transactional model of leadership has been adapted by Bass for use inorganisations. However, Burns's analysis focuses on what may be termed macro-levelleadership of entire states or organisations, whereas Bass's approach is used to studymicro-level leadership where there is ongoing direct interaction between leader andfollowers. This paper examines the cabinet leadership styles of four Australian politicalleaders: Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, John Cain and Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Cabinetministers who served under these leaders were asked to complete a questionnaire ratingthe leadership behaviours they experienced. The results are compared with the evidenceon leadership style presented in biographical accounts.

Students of political, leadership have long recognised that there are different types ofleader and have tried to classify them according to the characteristics of theirleadership styles. A relatively recent classification is that devised by JamesMacGregor Burns (1978) who divided political leaders into transformational andtransactional types according to the effects they had on large followings. Thisclassification was adapted by Bernard Bass (1985a) in order to study leadership inorganisations where the relationship between leaders and followers involves smallergroups and is more direct and interpersonal. Bass developed the MultifactorLeadership Questionnaire (MLQ) as the primary instrument for ascertaining thenature of organisational leadership. The aim of the present study is to extend theMLQ to the political arena in order to examine the cabinet leadership styles of fourAustralian leaders: Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, John Cain and Joh Bjelke-Petersen.These leaders were selected because they represent leaders from the recent past at bothstate and federal levels and from the three major political parties.

Clearly, there are problems in translating an instrument designed for the study oforganisational leadership into the political field. Leader-follower relations in thepolitical arena have many more dimensions than in an organisation. Politicalleadership encompasses inter alia relations with the electorate, the cabinet, the

Date submitted: 28 June 1994. Date finally accepted: 7 July 1995. © AusJPS 1995The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Geoff Cockfield in data collection and of DamianBirney and Michael Trimarchi in data analysis. They also acknowledge the constructive comments on anearlier draft by Chris Leithner and the anonymous referees of the AusJPS. A previous paper based on thisstudy was presented at the conference of the Australasian Political Science Association in October 1993.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

470 Transformational Versus Transactional Styles

parliamentary party, the party organisation, interest groups, the bureaucracy, thepress, and other government leaders. It is conceivable that a leader who is seen astransformational in the eyes of the electorate may be perceived quite differently bycabinet colleagues and public servants. As Etzioni puts it: 'top executives, heads ofstate, and kings, who have charisma in the eyes of the public ... may have little or[none] in the eyes of [their] private secretaries, valets, and cabinet ministers' (Bass1988,42). This study deals solely with cabinet leadership based on the perceptionsof ministers who served under the four leaders.

Transformational and Transactional Leadership

In his book, Leadership, Burns distinguished leadership from naked power-wieldingby endowing it with certain positive characteristics which would prevent many rulersand heads of state from classification as leaders. Hitler for example, according toBurns's definition, was not a leader but a tyrant, because leadership must be linkedto social purpose. The effectiveness of leaders must be judged 'by actual socialchange measured by intent and by the satisfaction of human need and expectations'(Burns 1978, 3). Leadership is thus inseparable from followers' needs and goals.Hitler's satisfaction of the needs and expectations of his followers was not intendedbut occurred because, for a time, their respective needs coincided. When the twodiffered, he chose to satisfy his own needs and therefore failed Burns's test ofleadership. Burns implies a certain selflessness—or at least a highly developedconsciousness of followers' needs—on the part of authentic leaders. Within thisframework, he borrowed from Downton (1973) to suggest that there are two broadleadership categories, the transformational and the transactional.

A transformational leader is one who persuades followers to transcend their ownself-interest for the sake of a larger good. Followers' needs are raised on Maslow'shierarchy from lower level needs like security to higher level needs such as self-actualisation. Ends, such as justice or liberty, are more important than means:

Various names are used for such leadership, some of them derisory: elevating,mobilizing, inspiring, exalting, uplifting, preaching, exhorting,evangelizing ... transforming leadership ultimately becomes moral in that itraises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and led,and thus it has a transforming effect on both (Burns 1978, 20).

Transformational leaders are frequently heroic, a term which Burns substitutes forcharismatic because of the overuse and cheapening of that term. It is, however, verysimilar in that heroic leaders are supported because of their personage alone. Thissupport is expressed directly through votes, handshakes and applause rather thanthrough intermediaries. A vital function of this type of leadership is to releasepeople from conflict by giving them the opportunity to project their fears andaggressions on to some other object. Thus, 'heroic leadership provides the symbolicsolution of internal and external conflict' (Burns 1978, 244). Such leaders, likecharismatic leaders, usually arise in societies undergoing profound crisis ortransition. If, however, the idolised hero only provides short-run gratification anddependency for the followers, and there is no transcending purpose or lasting,intended change then he or she is not an authentic leader.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ANDREW HEDE&RAE WEAR 471

Transactional leadership, on the other hand, is based on an exchange model and ismore concerned with lower level needs, such as security, and modal values such asfairness and honouring commitments: 'leaders approach followers with an eye toexchanging one thing for another: jobs for votes, or subsidies for campaigncontributions' (Burns 1978, 4). According to Burns, electoral politics are nearlyalways transactional because the quest for electoral success can make reform ortransformation a risky strategy. In such systems, the leader promises tax cuts orimproved services in return for votes. Once the exchange has occurred, there is noneed for leader-follower linkages or loyalties to remain intact. Such links depend onfurther exchanges. As pluralist theorists have observed, electoral systems produce akind of marketplace where 'relationships are dominated by quick calculations andcost-benefits' (Burns 1978, 258). Incremental change, rather than transformation isthe norm. Transformational leadership is not entirely precluded, but 'the tradition,the ethic, the organisation, the spirit of the Western parliamentary enterprise is thatof transaction and brokerage' (Burns 1978,344).

Transformational and Transactional Leadership in the OrganisationalContextBernard Bass took the concepts of transformational and transactional leadership outof the political arena and extended them to supervisor-subordinate relations ingeneral. To these, he added a third, but minor category: laissez-faire leadership,which is 'indecisive, uninvolved, withdrawn when needed, and reluctant to take astand' (Bass and Avolio 1990a, 7). Bass's main focus, however, is on transactionaland transfonnational leadership within organisations. He found that transactionalmanagers have a cost-benefit orientation towards leadership. They concentrate onensuring that effort is appropriately rewarded and that behaviour conforms toexpectations:

They tend to survey their subordinate's needs and set goals for them on thebasis of the effort they can rationally expect from their subordinates ... Themanagers, as transactional leaders, concentrate on compromise, intrigue, andcontrol (Bass 1985a, 13).

Transactional leadership is most likely to be conservative and supportive of thestatus quo.

Transfonnational leadership, on the other hand, is by its very nature eitherrevolutionary or reactionary. Leaders who are transformational possess charisma andare able to inspire followers with a sense of mission and vision. They provideintellectual stimulation and persuade followers to find new ways of solvingproblems. As well as being considerate of individual needs, they 'delegate, coach,advise and provide feedback' (Bass and Avolio 1990a, 6). Senior executives surveyedby Bass indicated that transformational leaders 'induced respondents to workridiculous hours and to do more than they ever expected to do'. Followers respond tosuch leaders with 'trust, strong liking, admiration, loyalty, and respect' (Bass 1985b,31-3).

Unlike Burns, Bass does not qualify leadership by suggesting that it must satisfyfollowers' genuine needs or raise their ethical aspirations: 'from our point of view,transfonnational leadership is not necessarily beneficial leadership' (Bass 1985a, 21).Hitler, according to Bass, was a transformational leader because he revolutionised

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


German society. Lee Iaccoca and Henry Ford are cited as corporate examples oftransformational leadership, because not only did they transform their organisationsand persuade workers to act for the corporate good, but they made many of them feelgood about it in the process. Because Bass is interested primarily in leadership as aprocess, he gives far less consideration than Burns to the goals or ends of leadership.Thus, there is no questioning of the morality of the corporate environment in whichFord and Iococca operated or whether workers' authentic needs were being met

Bass also differs from Burns in that he does not see transformational andtransactional leaders as existing at opposite ends of a continuum. Bass argues thatmost leaders exhibit both transformational and transactional characteristics and thattransformational leadership most frequently occurs in tandem with the transactionalstyle (Bass 1985a, 23). He cites Henry Ford who made deals with his workers aswell as inspiring (and intimidating) them. In addition, Bass found thattransformational leadership was far more common than Burns had supposed and thatit can appear in environments which are not in crisis (1985a, 28). Bass thus providesa far less rarefied definition of transformational leadership than Burns, but one whichnevertheless retains its heroic and inspirational qualities.

Whilst Burns is primarily interested in macro-level leadership whereby leadersinfluence vast constituencies beyond their immediate circle of direct interaction, Bassfocuses on the micro level. Although he has studied leaders only in an organisationalcontext, his approach should also be applicable to political leadership at the microlevel of cabinet. It is not so much the differences in the arena that distinguishbetween Bums' and Bass's analyses of leadership (political versus organisational,respectively), but rather the level of operation of leadership (macro versus micro,respectively).

The present study of political leaders focuses on the micro level and aims todetermine whether such leaders adopted a transformational or transactional style intheir leadership of cabinet. The study compares existing biographical evidence withnew empirical data obtained from cabinet ministers using the Bass MultifactorLeadership Questionnaire.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) comprises 70 statementsdescribing the behaviour of leaders (Bass and Avolio 1990b). Subordinates areinvited to rate the frequency with which the statement fits a particular leader using a0-4 scale: 'Not at all; Once in a while; Sometimes; Fairly often; Frequently, if notalways'. Thus, the MLQ is designed for assessing micro-level leadership usingratings by followers who have experienced ongoing direct interaction with the leader.

The MLQ items load on a number of different factors which have been confirmedby factor analysis and have been found to be reliable (Bass and Avolio 1990b). Fourof the MLQ factors relate to transformational leadership, two to transactionalleadership, and one to an avoidance of leadership (non-leadership) (see Table 1). Thefirst transformational factor, Charisma, is defined by both the behaviour of the leaderand the reactions of subordinates, and refers to the leader's ability to commandrespect and trust and to communicate a clear mission. Inspiration, the secondtransformational factor, is similar to Charisma and denotes the ability to set goals

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


and encourage followers to achieve. The third transformational factor is IntellectualStimulation which involves a leader supporting followers in the use of rationalityand analysis in problem solving. The final transformational factor is IndividualisedConsideration whereby 'followers are treated differently but equitably on a one-to-onebasis' (Bass and Avolio 1990b, 19).

Table 1: Leadership Factors in the Moltifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)with Typical Items

Factor Typical Item

Transformational FactorsCharisma (CH) 'Was someone in whom I had complete faith'Inspiration (IN) 'Cave me encouraging talks'Intellectual Stimulation (IS) 'Required that I back up my opinion with good reasoning'Individualised Consideration (IC) 'Treated each of us as an individual'

Transactional Factors .-• . .Contingent Reward (CR) 'Gave me what I wanted in exchange for my showing

support for him/her'Management-by-Exception (ME) 'Avoided intervening except when I failed to meet

objectives'Non-leadership Factor

Laissez-faire (LF) 'Avoided getting involved in our work'

The central principle in the two transactional factors is reciprocity between leaderand follower. Contingent Reward refers to the leader's use of recognition and otherrewards in return for cooperation and support. The second transactional factor,Management-by-Exception, entails intervention only when necessary, and in thiscase, 'the modes of reinforcement are correction, criticism, negative feedback, andnegative contingent reinforcement, rather than the positive reinforcement used withcontingent reward leadership' (Bass and Avolio 1990b, 20). The MLQ also measuresa non-leadership factor called Laissez-faire which specifies a tendency to avoid bothpositive and negative interaction with followers. Each of the seven factors isassessed by ten items on the MLQ (see Table 1 for examples) with the exception ofInspiration which comprises only seven items. In addition, the MLQ has three itemswhich measure the extent to which the follower felt motivated towards Extra Effort

For the present study the commercial version of the MLQ (Form 5 copyrightedby Consulting Psychologists Press) was modified slightly as follows: the itemswere put into the past tense as none of the leaders are still in power, the items wereput into non-sexist language for possible future use with female leaders; responseswere to be indicated by circling the appropriate rating number; the additional itemsrelating to organisations were omitted; and the form was typeset to fit on the insideof a folded A3 sheet with a cover page of instructions and back page for additionalcomments.

Data CollectionThe population for the survey was defined as all those who served as cabinetministers under the four political leaders. A criterion of six months in Cabinet wasset to ensure that the respondents had sufficient experience of the person's micro-level leadership to make informed ratings. Parliamentary handbooks were used toidentify those (former) ministers who met the criterion and were still living (there

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


were 109 in all), and their current addresses were traced via speakers' offices andparliamentary past-members' associations. The four leaders were notified about thesurvey and all indicated either approval or lack of objection. Questionnaires wereposted in early November 1992 with a covering letter on university letterheadexplaining the purpose of the survey and a reply-paid envelope. A follow-up letterwas sent in early December to all 109 ministers, thanking those who had alreadyreplied (anonymously) and reminding those who had not. Some follow-up phonecalls and approaches in person were made to encourage response.

Overall, there were 42 questionnaires returned but one was less than halfcompleted leaving 41 useable responses. The overall response rate of 38% isprobably as good as could be expected considering the target population.Respondents were asked to write the leader's name on the front of the questionnairebut four neglected to do so, and one chose to rate a leader not in this study. Thesefive other responses were included in reliability tests of the MLQ's application topolitical leadership. The highest response rate was for Malcolm Fraser with eightministers responding out of a possible seventeen (47% response). There were alsoeight responses each for Bob Hawke and John Cain, the response rates beingcomparable at 28% and 29%, respectively. Most responses were received for JohBjelke-Petersen with twelve ministers responding at a rate of 34%. It is notable thatthe two Labor leaders had lower response rates than the two conservative leaders.

The present methodology differs from that of conventional social surveys.Consequently, the sample size requirements were different and should be evaluatedusing different criteria. Although the sample was small for a social survey, thepresent study was not interested in ministers' attitudes per se. Rather, ministers'ratings were used to provide measurements of each leader's behavioural style. Aminimum of eight ratings was obtained for each leader. The fact that relatively smallnumbers of ministers rated each leader can be readily accommodated in the statisticalanalysis.

A more significant methodological issue concerns the survey non-response. Onereason for the overall low response rate is that many of the items have a tone whichsome ministers found inappropriate.1 What is important, however, is not so muchthat more than 60% of ministers declined to participate, but rather whether thesenon-respondents differed systematically from those who did respond in theirperception of the relevant leader's style—such a difference would produce bias in theresults. One possible influence on participation is whether the minister had retiredfrom politics which may have been a factor in the high response for Fraser whoseperiod in power ended well before the other leaders. Another factor is whether theminister was still in government, which may have affected the low response forHawke whose party (Labor) was the only one in power at the time (though the Cainministers had a comparable response rate and were not in government).

In a survey of this type, personal regard for the leader would probably haveinfluenced a minister's decision whether or not to participate. Respondents would

1 For example, one respondent commented that 'the questions imply a patronising stance by the leader. Youare dealing with mature men not children'. Also, two former Fraser ministers were quite unimpressed—Andrew Peacock phoned to say he thought the survey was 'a waste of time' and John Howard tore thequestionnaire in half when it was presented in person by a colleague of the researchers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


tend to be those who had strong feelings towards the leader, either positive ornegative—those who were moderate or neutral in their approval/satisfaction wouldbe inclined not to bother completing the questionnaire. It would seem unlikely,then, that respondents and non-respondents would have been systematically differentin their assessment of leadership style. It is important to note that the questionnairegave no information about the study's focus on transformational versus transaction^leadership. Therefore, the responses to the survey can be regarded as representing areasonably unbiased view of the leadership styles of the four leaders.

ResultsThe data were computer punched and then re-punched for verification. Items that wereleft blank were coded '0 ' , the rationale being that if the respondent didn't knowwhether an item applied or thought it was not applicable, then this is equivalent to'not at all' (about a third of respondents left one or more items blank, the mostbeing 9 blanks out of the 70 items). The analysis was carried out using theStatgraphics statistical package. Following Bass, Cascio and O'Connor (1974,313-20), the frequency rating scale was treated as providing an interval level ofmeasurement for which means are a suitable descriptive statistic. The reliability orinternal consistency of the scales for the different leadership styles was tested usingCronbach's Alpha (with a coefficient of 0.S regarded as the minimum acceptablevalue, and 0.8 or greater considered ideal). The reliability coefficients of the variousscales were as follows: Charisma, 0.88; Inspiration, 0.62; Intellectual Stimulation,0.84; Individualised Consideration, 0.87; Contingent Reward, 0.86; Management-byException, 0.76; Laissez-faire, 0.73. These levels are comparable to those obtainedby Bass using the MLQ to assess organisational leadership (Bass and Avolio1990b), which confirms the reliability of the instrument in the political context.Note that in both cases it is micro-level leadership which is being assessed. It wasnot possible to confirm the factor structure of the MLQ as there were not sufficientdata to justify the use of factor analysis (with 70 items approximately 300respondents would be required).

Individual ItemsThe first indication of leadership style is given by the individual questionnaire itemson which each leader was rated highest on average by his former cabinet ministers.These are presented in Table 2. It can be seen that the four leaders differed in thebehaviour or reaction which was ascribed most frequently. For Fraser and Cain, theitem 'Had my respect' (Q36) was rated highest, whereas for Hawke it was 'Avoidedtelling me how to do my job' (Q7), and for Bjelke-Petersen it was 'Expressed ourimportant purposes in simple ways' (Q16). Significantly, the top-rating items forFraser, Cain and Bjelke-Petersen all load on transformational factors, whereas all butone of the items for Hawke load on transactional or non-leadership factors (seebelow).

To obtain an indication of differences in style among the four leaders under study,statistical tests were conducted on each of the 70 questionnaire items using the t-testBecause of the relatively small number of data points, only nine of the items provedto be significantly different at the 95% confidence level (see Table 3). Caution isnecessary in interpreting these results as only the highest and lowest ratings can beconfidently regarded as different. It is notable that all of the items on which there are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


Table 2: Leadership Items on which Leaden Received Highest Ratings8

FraserQ2Q36Q38Q44Q45Q50

HawkeQ7Q13

Set high standards (3.6) (IN)Had my respect (3.8) (CH)Required that I back up my opinion with good reasoning (3.7) (IS)Communicated expectations of high performance to me (3.5) (IN)Got me to identify key aspects of complex problems (3.4) (IS)Had a sense of mission which he communicated to me (3.6) (CH)

Avoided telling me how to do my job (3.8) (LF)Avoided trying to change what I did as long as things were going alongsmoothly (3.6) (ME)

Q34 Avoided intervening except when I failed to meet objectives (3.3) (ME)Q35 Didn't contact me if I didn't contact him (3.3) (LF)Q38 Required that I back up my opinion with good reasoning (3.3) (IS)Bjelke-PetersenQ2 Set high standards (3.1) (IN)Q16 Expressed our important purposes in simple ways (3.6) (IN)Q29 Was viewed as a symbol of success and accomplishment (3.3) (CH)Q36 Had my respect (3.3) (CH)Q50 Had a sense of mission which he communicated to me (33) (CH)

CainQ2 Set high standards (3.5) (IN)Q16 Expressed our important purposes in simple ways (3.4) (IN)Q2S Treated each of us as an individual (3.4) (IC)Q29 Was viewed as a symbol of success and accomplishment (3.6) (CH)Q36 Had my respect (3.8) (CH)Q38 Required that I back up my opinion with good reasoning (3.4) (IS)

* Mean frequency ratings and leadership factors in brackets.

Table 3: Leadership Items on which Leaders Differed*

Item Mean Frequency Rating

Fraser Hawke Bjelke-P Cain

Q22 Had a special gift for seeing what wasreally worthwhile for me to consider(CH)

Q24 Provided me with reasons to change theway I thought about problems (IS)

Q28 Avoided getting involved in our work(LF)

Q36 Had my respect (CH)Q38 Required that I back up my opinion with

good reasoning (IS)Q44 Communicated expectations of high

performance to me (IN)Q50 Had a sense of mission which he

communicated to me (CH)

QS3 Provided advice to me when I needed it(IC)

QS9 Made sure I thought through what wasinvolved before taking action (IS)

2.9 1.0 2.7 1.4

2.4

0.6

3.83.8

3.5

3.5

3.1

3.0

l.l

2.9

2.63.3

2.8

2.4

1.3

1.9

0.8

1.8

3.323

1.7

3.3

2.3

1.3

1.5

2.6

3.83.4

2.9

3.0

23

2.4

a Mean frequency ratings different at 0.05 significance. Leadership factors identified in brackets.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


significant differences load on transformational factors, except Q28 which is a non-leadership item. In most cases the difference was due to Fraser being rated highestand either Hawke or Bjelke-Petersen rated lowest. For example, on the item'Communicated expectations of high performance to me' (Q44), Fraser received anaverage rating of 3.5 as compared with only 1.7 for Bjelke-Petersen. The item'Provided advice to me when I needed it' (Q53) resulted in a rating of 3.1 for Fraserand 1.3 for Hawke. Other results indicate that Fraser was more likely than Bjelke-Petersen to insist on thought before action (see Q59 in Table 3), that Hawke wasmore likely than Fraser to avoid getting involved (see Q28), but that Frasercommanded more respect in cabinet than Hawke (see Q36).

Leadership FactorsThe primary analysis was focused on the seven leadership factors measured by theMLQ (see Table 1). This analysis was conducted for each leader by averaging theratings on the various questionnaire items that relate to each of the factors. Theresults are presented graphically in Figure 1. The leadership profile of MalcolmFraser is distinctive in that the four transformational factors (Charisma, IndividualConsideration, Inspiration, Intellectual Stimulation) were rated more highly than thetransactional factors (Management-by-Exception, Contingent Reward), with the non-leadership factor (Laissez-faire) rating comparatively lowly (see Figure 1). BobHawke, by contrast, has a profile in which the transformational factors were ratedabout equal to the transactional and non-leadership factors. The profiles for JohBjelke-Petersen and John Cain are surprisingly similar. In both cases, thetransformational factors tended to be rated higher than the transactional factors withthe non-leadership factor rated lowest, their profiles being not very different fromthat for Fraser (see Figure 1).

A comparative view of the styles of the four leaders is offered in Figure 2.Firstly, On the four transformational factors it can be seen that Fraser wasconsistently the highest rated and Hawke almost invariably the lowest. The othertwo state leaders tended to fall between their federal counterparts on all fourtransformational factors. Particularly on the factors of Charisma and IndividualConsideration, Hawke's former ministers rated him lower than did those workingwith the other leaders. In the case of the two transactional factors, Hawke washighest and Fraser lowest on Management-by-Exception. The four leaders werecomparable on the Contingent Reward factor, but for the non-leadership factor,Laissez-faire, Hawke was again rated highest and Fraser lowest. This latter factortaps a 'hands-off leadership style which is conceptually opposite to the personalattention approach characterised by the Individual Consideration factor. The findingthat the relative ratings of Fraser and Hawke were reversed for Laissez-faire andIndividual Consideration (compare the two graphs in Figure 2) confirms theconstruct validity of these factors.

In addition to the various leadership scales, the MLQ provides a measure of aleader's ability to motivate others, namely, the three-item scale of 'Extra Effort'(typical item: 'Motivated me to do more than I thought I could do'). Analysis usingCronbach's Alpha showed this scale to be highly reliable (Alpha = 0.82). The leaderwith the highest ratings on this scale was Fraser (2.5) and the lowest was Hawke(1.5) with the two state leaders rated in between (Cain = 2.1; Bjelke-Petersen = 1.9).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


Figure 1: Profiles of Political Leaders on Seven Leadership Factors

Malcolm Fraser

Leadership Factor

Individual Consid'n

Inspiration]

1Intellectual Stim'n

Manage't-by-Exception

Contingent

Laissez-faire

Leadership Factor

* Charisma

Individual Consid'n

2-7 Inspiration

2-7 Intellectual Stim'n

I-9 Manage't-by-Exception

•

'•4 Contingent Reward

Laissez-faire

Charisma

Individual Consid'n

Inspiration

Intellectual Stim'n

Manage't-by-Exception

Contingent Rewan

Laissez-faire

\ X X

* X X

'x'x'<

X X iX X 1

X X *

h 1

*

/x'x

i X *

X

2

' x

'x 'x

2.3

Individual Consid'n

Inspiration

Intellectual Stim'n

a ' u V \ V \ M 2 A Manage't-by-Exception*********

. X X X X X \* * * * * * ,

X X X X X X1.6 Contingent Reward

* * * * *. X X X X >* * * * *

1.3 Laissez-faire

Bob Hawke

2.1

1.4

Zl

2

2.4

ZI

1

Joh Bjelke-Peterscn John Cain

Leadership Factor Leadership Factor

2 - 8 Charisma2.9

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ANDREW HEDE & RAE WEAR 479

Figure 2: Comparison of Political Leaders on Transformational and TransactionalLeadership Factors

Mean Rating

3 -

Charisma

Mean Rating

Individual Consid'n Inspiration

Transformational Factor

Intelectual Stim'n

3-

Mgt-by-Exception . Contingent Reward

Transactional Factor

Laissez Faire

Non-Leadership

Fraser Hawke " Bjelke-P Cain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


In interpreting the present empirical results it must be remembered that the MLQdoes not classify leaders on an 'either/or' basis (transformational versustransactional). Rather, it provides a profile on seven factors which indicate the extentto which a leader's behaviour fits both of these two broad styles. Overall, the pictureof micro-level leadership painted by this study portrays Fraser as having been moretransformational than transactional in his behaviour, at least as perceived by hisformer cabinet ministers. Thus, Fraser was rated as 'fairly often' engaging intransformational behaviours such as communicating a mission (Charisma),providing a vision (Inspiration), and challenging the rationality of his ministers(Intellectual Stimulation). Hawke, however, is shown to have been as likely to usetransactional behaviours as transformational behaviours, and apparently had atendency either to leave his ministers alone (Laissez-faire) or to intervene only whennecessary (Management-by-Exception). Both Bjelke-Petersen and Cain are portrayedas using slightly more transformational than transactional behaviours, particularlycharismatic behaviours which were used 'fairly often' according to the averageratings of their former ministers. In relative terms, Fraser can be seen as the mosttransformational of the four leaders and Hawke as the least transformational and mosttransactional. Also Fraser is shown as the most able to motivate his ministers andHawke the least able to stir them to make an 'extra effort*.

Table 4: Examples of Additional Comments Provided by Respondents

Fraser• He was a remarkably good head of the opposition and for the last few years an effective Prime

Minister ... He tended to do too much himself and not run a very effective team in government.• A number of these questions imply a quid pro quo relationship which I find foreign to my

experience of government under Fraser.• Malcolm had a view on almost every issue stemming from a deep philosophical attitude. But

like all good leaders, he would change his view if better information was put before him.• He was a strong, forceful leader always looking forward ... He was a demanding task-master

and for the greater part maintained a tight well disciplined ship.Hawke

• Hawke tended to egomania and took most advice from those close to him ... Hawke was not anideas man, did not have an agenda, a sense of direction or any particular vision.

• He was totally 'hands off with me. It would have been advisable for him to make time forperiodic talks. But these talks were confined to 'mates' where there was a greater chemistrythan with me.

Bjelke-Petersen• Sir Joh had a simple philosophy—if it is right, do it! If you have doubts, re-think. Outwardly he

had little time for 'academics' but he used very up-to-date techniques of psychology tomotivate his friends.

• He had a vision and set about the simplest way to make Queensland a better state.• Joh was an enigma. For 90% of the time it was like working for a benevolent dictator—the

10% was a mix (sic) bag of excitement, rat baggery and down right vindictiveness.• This man was a firm decision maker. He never took for granted that he was Premier and all

had to go his way. He often reasoned with Ministers and if your case was strong, quite oftenyou would win the day.

Cain• Although sometimes pig-headed in the extreme, he would always stand by a decision made by

one of his ministers.• At times remote, I found our Premier usually warm, forthcoming and helpful—but I had known

him well for many, many years.• Set clear goals for government and insisted on high standards of integrity.• He didn't excite or impress his followers or the public with his rhetoric (in the way great

leaders do). But he did give a very strong sense of integrity, commitment to cause andtrustworthiness.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


Additional CommentsAs well as the ratings on leadership items, the questionnaire invited respondents tomake additional comments which are summarised in Table 4 (the numbers of formerministers making such comments were as follows: Fraser = 4; Hawke = 2; Bjelke-Petersen = 5; Cain = 4). The impression conveyed by these anecdotal remarks isconsistent with the main MLQ findings. The 'quid pro quo' (transactional) itemswere rejected as 'foreign' to the leadership of Fraser, who was also seen as doing 'toomuch himself, as having a 'view on almost every issue', and as being a 'strongforceful leader always looking forward' (ie, transformational style). Hawke, on theother hand, was seen to lack 'a sense of direction or any particular vision', to havedealt mainly with his cabinet 'mates', and as being 'totally hands off (ie, non-leadership). The comments about Bjelke-Petersen are indicative of a tendency towardsa transformational style: thus, he is described as having 'a vision', as being a'benevolent dictator' 90% of the time, as using 'very up-to-date techniques ofpsychology to motivate his friends', and as being 'a firm decision maker' wholistened to advice. Finally, Cain is described as 'sometimes pig-headed in theextreme' but still standing by his ministers, as 'usually warm, forthcoming andhelpful'. Cain's transformational style is particularly indicated by the comments thathe 'set clear goals', that he 'insisted on high standards of integrity', and that he gave'a strong sense of integrity, commitment to cause and trustworthiness'.2

Discussion

Biographical AnalysesThe present empirical findings can be compared with biographical analyses inrelation to cabinet leadership. Biographical accounts give the impression of a mix ofbehaviours as Bass anticipates, but emphasise transactional rather thantransformational leadership as the dominant style. Patrick Weller, for example foundthat:

Fraser was a leader who implicitly dealt in bargains with supporters andvoters, a 'transactional' leader who tried to deliver success to his party andprosperity to the country—in exchange for support. He was not loved and hadno charisma. He painted no vision except for the need for belt-tightening andhard work; no promise that things would ever be easy (Weller 1989,406).

Despite the fact that Fraser consulted his colleagues and was a good listener,many of his colleagues neither liked nor trusted him (Weller 1989). Although thefirst capacity hints at a transformational style, by far the strongest impression ofcabinet leadership is of a transactional leader. Hawke appears to have been far lessinterventionist in his relations with cabinet colleagues than Fraser. His focus andpriorities were 'giving a free rein to you ministers and operating as a safety net'(Kelly 1992, 658). Hurst (1983, 265) has reported that he did not contributesignificantly to the task of policy making which he left largely to others. Theimpression given is of a leader who indicates Bass's minor classification of laissez-

2 Integrity, like fairness and honouring commitments may be perceived as a modal value by Burns, and thusassociated with transactional leadership. There appears to be a discrepancy between Bums and Bass in thisinstance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


faire leadership although his pursuit of consensus on public policy also suggests thedeals and trade-offs of the transactional leader.

Bjelke-Petersen was a 'political fixer' (Kelly 1992,313) with an ability to 'workthe system' (Coaldrake 1989). He was a strong leader who maintained loyalty withinthe parliamentary party not only by winning his colleagues' regard but by holdingout the prospects of promotion or demotion in the ministry. Hugh Lunn (1987, 71)records that Bjelke-Petersen threatened Liberal leader and coalition partner, GordonChalk, with the loss of Treasury if he 'didn't play ball'. The record, therefore, seemsto indicate only modestly transformational characteristics linked with apredominantly transactional cabinet leadership style where promotion was given inreturn for loyalty and displeasure and desk-thumping greeted those deemed to beobstructive (Lunn 1987, 71). Cain was widely perceived to be an effective cabinetmanager who favoured a consensus style (Holmes 1984, 24). Although thenegotiation required to achieve consensus and Cain's pragmatic, managerialistapproach suggest a principally transactional style, there are slight indications oftransformational elements to Cain's leadership, most notably in his problem solvingcapacities (Considine 1992, 190) and the respect he commanded from cabinetcolleagues.

MLQ ResultsThe first point to note from the results of the MLQ is that all leaders appear to havebeen less transactional in their dealings with cabinet than other sources suggest. Thefact that Labor ministries are chosen by caucus and Liberal and National ministriesby the prime minister appears not to have been significant in influencing leadershipstyles. However, prime ministers' or premiers' choices would seem to favour atransactional style (a place in the ministry in return for loyal service). Rather, thetransactional behaviours measured by the MLQ instrument (Management-by-Exception and Contingent Reward) were rated by cabinet ministers as being usedonly 'sometimes' on average, whereas one would have expected from biographicalaccounts that the political leaders would have used such behaviours fairly frequently.On the question of transformational leadership it is notable that, with the exceptionof Fraser, the empirical findings are consistent with the biographical analysis.Hawke is portrayed as being low on transformational leadership in cabinet and this isconfirmed by the present results. In fact, the empirical data indicate that Hawke isperceived by his colleagues as having been so laissez-faire in leadership as to havebeen almost completely 'hands-off in his dealings with them. In the case of bothCain and Bjelke-Petersen, the present results confirm the biographical picture oftheir exercising at least a moderate degree of transformational leadership in cabinet.Fraser, of course, is the surprise—a veritable 'closet charismatic'! Most biographershave assumed that Fraser was as non-transformational in cabinet as he was in theelectorate. However, according to the MLQ data, he was the most transformationalof all four leaders. His cabinet ministers rated him as 'fairly often' employingbehaviours that inspired them.

The study also confirms Bass's observation that most leaders combinetransformational and transactional characteristics. This combination was apparent inthe material on all the leaders, although most seem to have been higher ontransformational factors than transactional factors in their cabinet leadership. This is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


a rather surprising result and the reverse of our original biographical assessments ofFraser, Bjelke-Petersen and Cain. There is thus some evidence to support Bass'scontention that transformational leadership may be more common than was oncethought It is also possible that a top leadership position may already be endowedwith transformational factors which rub off on the incumbent:

charisma-like leadership can be a property of one's position (providingcelebrity status) as well as of one's person ... As an 'office charismatic' ... aleader may attain celebrity status by virtue of the strong public image affordedthe holder of a valued role (Bass 1988,41).

This 'office charisma' may explain the remarkably similar cabinet leadership profilesof such radically different people as Bjelke-Petersen and Cain. Both men were statepremiers who generally tend to be 'large frogs in their small state puddles', with farfewer constraints on their power than prime ministers. The premiership, even morethan the prime ministership, may carry with it a transformational aura so that theincumbent will be seen by many of his or her followers as charismatic, considerateor inspirational—providing that they are not radically deficient in suchcharacteristics. Such an aura may be enhanced by a leader like Fraser who sawcabinet as the engine of government and devoted time and effort to it. By the sametoken, leaders like Hawke whose focus is elsewhere, may lose some of the lustre ofoffice in the eyes of their colleagues if they are too laissez-faire in their approach.

This attempt to examine Australian political leadership using an empiricalmethodology cannot be regarded as definitive. But nor should the study be dismissedas unreliable. Although it has used an instrument primarily designed for analysingorganisational leadership, the instrument's underlying conceptual framework oftransformational versus transactional leadership was derived from the political arena.Also, the instrument was used appropriately to assess micro-level leadership in thatfollowers (ministers) were required to rate the behaviour of their leaders (primeminister or premier) in an organisation (cabinet). It is suggested, therefore, that thefindings can be considered as providing a reasonably valid additional perspective oncabinet leadership in Australia.

ReferencesBass, B.M. 1985a. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free

Press.Bass, B.M. 1985b. 'Leadership: Good, Better, Best.' Organisational Dynamics

Winter:26-40.Bass, B.M. 1988. 'Evolving Perspectives on Charismatic Leadership.' In Charismatic

Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organisational Effectiveness, ed. J.A. Conger andR.N. Kanungo. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bass, B.M. and B.J. Avolio. 1990a. Training and Development of TransformationalLeadership: Looking to 1992 and Beyond, Centre for Leadership Studies. New York:State University of New York.

Bass, B.M. and B.J. Avolio. 1990b. Transformational Leadership Development: Manualfor the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto: Consulting PsychologistsPress.

Bass, B.M., W.F. Cascio and E.J. O'Connor. 1974. 'Magnitude estimations ofexpressions of frequency and amount.' Journal of Applied Psychology 59(3): 313-20.

Burns, J.M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


Coaldrake, P. 1989. Working the System. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.Considine, M. 1992. 'Labor's Approach to Policy Making.' In Trials in Power, Cain

Kirner and Victoria, ed. M. Considine and B. Costar. Melbourne: MelbourneUniversity Press.

Downton, J.V. 1973. Rebel Leadership, Commitment and Charisma in the RevolutionaryProcess. New York: Free Press.

Holmes, J. 1984. 'Politics in Victoria-ideology regained.' Current Affairs Bulletin 61(4):18-30.

Hurst, J. 1983. Hawke PM. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.Kelly, P. 1992. The End of Certainty. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Lunn, H: 1987. Joh: The Life and Political Adventures of Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen.

St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.Weller, P. 1989. Malcolm Fraser PM: A Study in Prime Ministerial Power in Australia.

Ringwood, Vic.: Penguin.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

58 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

Transformational versus transactional styles of cabinet leadership in Australian politics