Theory Of Transactional Leadership

The concept of transactional leadership seems to have its origins in the work of Downtown (1973) when he contrasted transactional from transformational leadership to account for differences between revolutionary, rebel, reform, and ordinary leaders (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Leithwood et al., 1996; Silins, 1994). However, systematic research into the nature and effects on transactional leadership in different work organizations seems to have taken firm roots following the work of Burns (1978), who distinguished two forms of leaders, that is, transactional and transformational leaders. According to Burns, the main distinction, and the central feature, of transformational and transactional leadership is based on the process by which leaders motivate

Afolabi, Obude, Okediji, & Ezeh (2008) did analysis and give evidence in the favor of transactional leadership, they observed that transactional leadership is more effective when organization desire to achieve their aims and objectives. Questionnaire (MLQ) containing scales measuring the three dimensions of transformational leadership and four dimensions of transactional leadership, report evidence of transformational leadership effects on criterion variables as extra effort,job satisfaction, commitment, trust in leader, and organizational citizenship (Avolio &Bass, 1988; Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Bogler, 2001; Koh et al., 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass, 1993). Taking the work of Bass (1985) as a point of departure, research on transformational leadership in educational settings was initiated by Leithwood and his colleagues in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood et al., 1996,

Bass & Avolio, 1990; Hater &Bass, 1988) also hypothesized four behavior dimensions that underlie transactional leadership. According to Bass (1985), the relationship among the transactional dimensions beyond the fact that they are, to a varying degree, oriented toward leader follower exchanges, is that they represent relatively low forms of leader activity and involvement (at least when compared with the transformational dimension). The four transactional dimensions from highest to lowest activity level include:

Contingency reward: The extent to which leaders set goals, make rewards on performance, obtains necessary resources, and provides rewards when performance goals are met.This type of Transactional leadership style is known for its coercive systems which indicates that power is directed from above. This type of leadership provides the employee with clarity about what is expected and accepted from them, and what the employees get in return. The leader shows little interest in the opinions of the employees and clarifies a sense of duty with rewards and punishments to reach their