IOP4862
Assignment 6
Semester 2 2025
Due October 2025
,IOP4862
Assignment 06
Semester 2 2025
Due October 2025
Managerial and Organisational Psychology
SECTION A: CASE STUDY
1.1 Leadership Theory Relevant to Mike Monroe’s Style
When examining Mike Monroe’s leadership, the theory that best explains his approach
is Transformational Leadership. Developed by James MacGregor Burns in 1978 and
later refined by Bernard Bass, transformational leadership has become one of the most
influential models in modern leadership studies. The theory centres on the idea that
leaders do more than just manage day-to-day operations or exchange rewards for
effort; instead, they motivate followers to transcend their self-interest in pursuit of a
greater collective vision (Bass, 1999).
Unlike transactional leadership, which is primarily concerned with maintaining order
and rewarding compliance, transformational leadership is visionary, developmental, and
inherently motivational. Transformational leaders achieve this by engaging followers at a
deeper psychological level. They do not simply control behaviour; they inspire it. Bass
(1999) outlined four key dimensions of transformational leadership, often referred to as
the “Four I’s”:
• Idealised influence: Leaders serve as ethical role models whose behaviours
earn respect and trust. They become figures that followers look up to and seek to
emulate.
, • Inspirational motivation: Leaders articulate a compelling vision of the future,
instil confidence, and set high expectations that energise the group.
• Intellectual stimulation: Leaders encourage critical thinking, innovation, and the
questioning of assumptions. They frame problems in new ways, inviting creative
solutions.
• Individualised consideration: Leaders treat followers as unique individuals,
offering coaching, mentorship, and personal support.
Mike’s leadership clearly reflects some of these elements. He shows evidence of
inspirational motivation in the way he tries to energise his team with a vision of
success. His style suggests an attempt to bring enthusiasm and drive into the
workplace, aligning with the idea that a strong vision can rally employees toward shared
goals. However, the case study also reveals limitations in his application of
transformational leadership. Mike seems less effective in addressing fairness and
recognition within the team, which undermines the principles of individualised
consideration and idealised influence.
A critical observation is that transformational leadership, while powerful in theory, often
falters in practice when leaders focus only on vision and overlook the relational aspects
of fairness, equity, and support. This partial application is evident in Mike’s behaviour:
his attempts to motivate the group may not resonate fully because they are
overshadowed by perceived inequality among team members.
It is also worth contrasting transformational leadership with alternative modern
approaches. For instance, authentic leadership—a model developed more recently—
emphasises transparency, self-awareness, and relational trust (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).
While transformational leadership often focuses on inspiration and vision, authentic
leadership is about grounded integrity and consistency. Mike could arguably benefit
from adopting elements of authentic leadership to complement his transformational
tendencies, particularly when his team questions his fairness. Similarly, servant
leadership, which prioritises meeting the needs of followers above organisational goals
(Greenleaf, 1977), could offer a useful corrective to his struggles with equity. Yet,
despite these alternatives, transformational leadership remains the most fitting lens
Assignment 6
Semester 2 2025
Due October 2025
,IOP4862
Assignment 06
Semester 2 2025
Due October 2025
Managerial and Organisational Psychology
SECTION A: CASE STUDY
1.1 Leadership Theory Relevant to Mike Monroe’s Style
When examining Mike Monroe’s leadership, the theory that best explains his approach
is Transformational Leadership. Developed by James MacGregor Burns in 1978 and
later refined by Bernard Bass, transformational leadership has become one of the most
influential models in modern leadership studies. The theory centres on the idea that
leaders do more than just manage day-to-day operations or exchange rewards for
effort; instead, they motivate followers to transcend their self-interest in pursuit of a
greater collective vision (Bass, 1999).
Unlike transactional leadership, which is primarily concerned with maintaining order
and rewarding compliance, transformational leadership is visionary, developmental, and
inherently motivational. Transformational leaders achieve this by engaging followers at a
deeper psychological level. They do not simply control behaviour; they inspire it. Bass
(1999) outlined four key dimensions of transformational leadership, often referred to as
the “Four I’s”:
• Idealised influence: Leaders serve as ethical role models whose behaviours
earn respect and trust. They become figures that followers look up to and seek to
emulate.
, • Inspirational motivation: Leaders articulate a compelling vision of the future,
instil confidence, and set high expectations that energise the group.
• Intellectual stimulation: Leaders encourage critical thinking, innovation, and the
questioning of assumptions. They frame problems in new ways, inviting creative
solutions.
• Individualised consideration: Leaders treat followers as unique individuals,
offering coaching, mentorship, and personal support.
Mike’s leadership clearly reflects some of these elements. He shows evidence of
inspirational motivation in the way he tries to energise his team with a vision of
success. His style suggests an attempt to bring enthusiasm and drive into the
workplace, aligning with the idea that a strong vision can rally employees toward shared
goals. However, the case study also reveals limitations in his application of
transformational leadership. Mike seems less effective in addressing fairness and
recognition within the team, which undermines the principles of individualised
consideration and idealised influence.
A critical observation is that transformational leadership, while powerful in theory, often
falters in practice when leaders focus only on vision and overlook the relational aspects
of fairness, equity, and support. This partial application is evident in Mike’s behaviour:
his attempts to motivate the group may not resonate fully because they are
overshadowed by perceived inequality among team members.
It is also worth contrasting transformational leadership with alternative modern
approaches. For instance, authentic leadership—a model developed more recently—
emphasises transparency, self-awareness, and relational trust (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).
While transformational leadership often focuses on inspiration and vision, authentic
leadership is about grounded integrity and consistency. Mike could arguably benefit
from adopting elements of authentic leadership to complement his transformational
tendencies, particularly when his team questions his fairness. Similarly, servant
leadership, which prioritises meeting the needs of followers above organisational goals
(Greenleaf, 1977), could offer a useful corrective to his struggles with equity. Yet,
despite these alternatives, transformational leadership remains the most fitting lens
