which organizations can encourage employees to perform beyond expectations (Dvir et al., 2002;
Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996; Tichy & Ulrich, 1984; Yammarino et al., 1993).
Whereas the more traditional leadership theories emphasized rational decision making,
transformational leadership theory emphasize the importance of affect and values (Yukl, 1999). Bass
GHVLJQDWHG DQ HQWLUH SDUW RI KLV ERRN WR WKH ³HPoWLRQDO FRPSRQHQW ́ RI WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO
leadership proposing that inspirational motivation leads to follower emotional arousal, and that leader
behaviors, such as instilling enthusiasm through pep talks and making employees feel proud of their
accomplishments, are part of the emotional appeal process.
$W WKH VDPH WLPH WKDW %XUQV¶ LQWURGXFHG WKH QRWLRQ RI WUDQVIRUPLQJ OHDGHUVKLS UHHQOHDI(1977)
introduced the notion of servant leadership. Servant leaders lead because they want to serve others.
The focus of servant leadership is on others rather than upon self and on understanding of the role of
the leader as a servant. Transformational leadership and servant leadership are both normative theories
of leadership (Ciulla, 1999). Both emphasize the relationship of leaders and followers to each other
and the importance of values on the process of leadership. Servant leadership has not received as
much attention as transformational leadership in the literature, but in recent years interest in it by the
business community has grown. ³LYHQ WKH LGHDO RI VHUYLFH LQ VHUYDQW OHDGHUVKLS WKH ODUJHVW
difference between these two [WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO DQG VHUYDQW@ OHDGHUVKLS WKHRULHV LV WKDW >« @
transformational leaders focus on organizational objectives; they inspire their followers to higher
performance for the sake of the organization. Servant-leaders focus more on concern for their
IROORZHUV E\ FUHDWLQJ FRQGLWLRQV WKDW HQKDQFH IROORZHUV¶ ZHOO-being and functioning and thereby
IDFLOLWDWHWKHUHDOL]DWLRQRIDVKDUHGYLVLRQ ́(van Dierendonck, 2011, p.1235).
On the basis of the evolution of leadership theory up until today, one may draw two main conclusions.
First of all, virtually all of the published papers on leadership emphasize the importance of the leader±
follower(s) relationship, implicitly assuming leadership as an individual leader endeavor. Second, the
common approach for describing leadership has been in terms of a two-factor model (task-oriented
and people-oriented leadership, transformational and transactional) (Yukl, 1999b). These two factors
are usually formulated and presented as opposites of one another. These dichotomies provide some
insights, but they also oversimplify a complex phenomenon and encourage stereotyping of individual
leaders (Yukl, 1999b). An alternative way to conceptualizing leadership is to conceive the tension in a
multidimensional way, in which interaction between the opposite sets of behaviors is characterized by
DQ ³$1' ́ UHODWLRQVKLS ,Q FRQWUDVW WR ³25 ́ WKH ³$1' ́ UHODWLRQVKLS UHFRJQL]HV WKH PXWXDO