Leadership Theories and Their Implications for Organisational Development
Transactional Leadership
Transactional leadership, while effective in securing compliance, maintaining operational stability, and achieving short-term targets, has been widely critiqued for its limitations in promoting sustainable organisational development (OD) and deep cultural change (Bush and Glover, 2014; Day et al., 2016). Originally conceptualised by Burns (1978) and further elaborated by Bass (1990), transactional leadership is underpinned by a system of contingent rewards and corrective actions, where leadership interactions are based on exchanges between leaders and subordinates to meet predefined goals. Although this model supports procedural efficiency and regulatory accountability, it cannot often inspire innovation, build professional trust, or address the ethical and relational complexities inherent in educational contexts (Shields, 2010; Hallinger, 2018). When adopted as the primary leadership paradigm within schools or care-based education settings, transactional leadership risks reinforcing hierarchical control (Leithwood et al., 2020), narrowing professional agency, and suppressing collaborative problem-solving.
Critique evaluation
One of the primary critiques of transactional leadership lies in its reinforcement of hierarchical control structures. It tends to prioritise top-down decision-making and task compliance, which may suppress innovation, reduce staff agency, and undermine collaborative cultures (Bass, 1997; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2005). In environments such as schools and care-based educational institutions—where creativity, emotional labour, and professional judgement are central—such rigidity can inhibit the professional autonomy (Torrance, 2013) necessary for adaptive responses to complex learner needs. Week 3 discussion (Voight-2025) suggests leadership is‘staying true to the mission of education’. According to Leithwood et al.(2008), leaders significantly influence culture and staff beliefs, values, motivation, skills, and knowledge. Ball (2003) supports Leighwood et al. (2008) discussion, cultures and accountability frameworks, when embedded within transactional leadership practices, foster a “culture of performativity,” where measurable indicators (e.g., grades, inspections, paperwork) become more valued than meaningful educational outcomes.
As Perryman (2009) notes, this culture often leads to “fabrications” of success—practices that appear effective on paper but lack substantive impact.
Transactional leadership tends to treat staff motivation as extrinsically driven, overlooking intrinsic motivators such as professional autonomy, collaborative agency, and moral purpose (Day and Sammons, 2016). Shields (2010) challenges the ethical vacuum within transactional leadership models, arguing that the absence of moral orientation limits the model’s ability to address equity, inclusion, and relational pedagogy—critical dimensions in care-based and alternative educational contexts.
Critically, the model may also foster learned compliance, where staff perform duties to satisfy surveillance mechanisms rather than to pursue authentic educational improvement (Torrance, 2013). This can result in professional stagnation, high attrition, and reduced organisational agility. As Hallinger (2003) and Bush and Glover (2014) contend, while transactional leadership may be effective in stabilising institutions during short-term crises or policy transitions, it does little to cultivate the adaptive capacity (Perryman et al., 2019) required for sustained development.
Transactional leadership should be reconceptualised (Leithwood et al., 2008; Harris & Spillane, 2008) not as a comprehensive leadership solution, but as a foundational tool to ensure organisational accountability. Its strategic use must be complemented by leadership models that elevate dialogue, innovation, and relational accountability.
Within my organisation, the systematic deployment of performance monitoring tools—such as key performance indicators (KPIs), audit trails, and appraisal systems—plays a central role in ensuring compliance with institutional policies and external regulatory frameworks. These mechanisms are commonly used by leaders to reinforce procedural consistency, operational alignment, and accountability (DfE, 2019; Greany and Earley, 2018). Such systems contribute to institutional coherence; they also risk cultivating a culture of performativity, in which staff behaviours are shaped more by the demands of measurement than by pedagogical innovation or meaningful professional engagement (Ball, 2003; Nelson and Squires, 2017).
This performative climate may inadvertently discourage reflective practice, marginalise relational aspects of teaching and care, and reduce professional autonomy (Perryman et al., 2018), particularly in complex educational settings where learners’ needs exceed what standardised metrics can capture.