Transformational Leadership Sand Cone Model

1258 Words6 Pages
2 Conceptual frameworks

The conceptual framework we utilize in this study are constructed, based on, and incorporate pieces such as the transformational leadership sand cone model and the Analytic Hierarchy Process tool, but the overall coherence concept builds on from our previous research.

2.1 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) tool and Questionnaire

The first conceptual frame was used in this study is the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a multi-criteria assessment tool which based on mathematics and psychological concepts through pair-wise comparisons. The AHP was innovated and developed by Saaty in 1970 and has been widely studied and developed since then. The evaluation among different factors helps us in making decisions in complex
…show more content…
It was developed and re-constructed based on the original sand cone model, which was invented by Takala et al. (2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2008a, 2008b). This transformational leadership model is supported by four main parts: resources, results, cornerstones and direction of outcomes. Resources are the basis (similar to arms and legs) that consists of processes (PC); people, technology, know how (PT); information systems (IT); and organization groups and teams (OR).

Next, the following level is Results (like the body) which includes three categories of leadership: passive, controlling and dynamic leadership in which passive and controlling leadership are least effective and concentrate more on corrective actions (Bass and Riggio, 2006). In contrast to passive and controlling leadership, dynamic leadership plays a significant role, Progen (2013) defines dynamic leadership as a dual-focused form of adaptive leadership that allows a leader to react to changes by being proactive. Duffy (2006) explains dynamic leadership as leading with courage, passion and vision. In fact, as the world has become more complicated, dynamic times require dynamic, driven leaders (Williams,
…show more content…
(2008a). Extra effort EE, or Prospector (oriented for future and extra effort); Effectiveness EF, or Defender (oriented for current results, less effort for future); Satisfaction SA, or Analyzer (oriented between prospector and defender).
Above all, the direction of outputs and the dynamic leadership performance play an important role in this transformational leadership model since the optimal balance for dynamic leadership (DL) is 82 %; while optimal value for controlling (CL) and passive leadership (PL) is 8 % each. In contrast, the optimal for directions of outputs is 33.3 % each; while the optimal balance for cornerstones as well as resources are equally 25 % each (Takala et al., 2008a,
Open Document