1

Transformational Leadership, Servant Leadership, and Psychological Needs

By Oleg Nekrassovski

Introduction

It is often asserted that successful leaders practice transformational leadership (TFL),

servant leadership (SL), and are sensitive to the psychological needs of their followers. Hence,

the purpose of this paper is to analyze, compare, and synthesize themes, on these topics, from

five sources: (1) “Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant

leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes,” by Van Dierendonck, Stam,

Boersma, De Windt, & Alkema (2014); (2) Military recruit training: An arena for stress coping

skills, by Novaco, Cook, and Sarason (1981); (3) “Are transformational leaders creative and

creative leaders transformational? An attempted synthesis through the Big Five Factor Model of

Personality Lens,” by Saxena (2014); (4) “The spiritual order of the LRA,” by Titeca (2010); and

(5) “The role of recruit division commanders in graduation from U.S. Navy recruit training,” by

Lucas et al. (2010). The analysis of surveyed literature illustrates some of the defining

characteristics of TFL and SL; and suggests that both TFL and SL are widely used by leaders of

different organizational types. In addition, the analysis of surveyed literature suggests that there

is a large variety of human psychological needs; the presence of which frequently varies from

individual to individual.

Transformational Leadership (TFL)

One theme common to all five sources is the concept of transformational leadership

(TFL) and its aspects. Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, & Alkema (2014) describe

TFL as multidimensional style of leadership, which includes emphasizing the values and needs

of the organization, over the values and needs of the followers. This aspect of TFL is evident in

the military recruit training, as described by Novaco, Cook, and Sarason (1981), which

emphasizes fulfilling the needs of the military, by imparting the recruits with basic military

skills, attitudes, and behaviors; while deemphasizing the needs and values of individual recruits

by tasking them with rapid social, psychological, and physical adjustment to the “boot camp”

life. This aspect of TFL is also evident in Lucas et al.’s (2010) discussion of the functions of

Recruit Division Commanders (RDCs), the supreme leaders of U.S. Navy recruits and their

training, who “have the important task of guiding new sailors through an intense indoctrination

experience” (p. 371). And it is well known that the indoctrination, in any military service,

emphasizes the values and needs of the organization, over the values and needs of the individual

recruits.

Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, & Alkema (2014) also note that TFL

involves using rewards to create a greater focus on achieving high outcomes. This aspect of TFL

2

is evident in Novaco, Cook, and Sarason’s (1981) description of military recruit training, in

which drill instructors use a variety of rewards and punishments to motivate recruits to achieve

higher outcomes. This aspect of TFL is also evident in Titeca’s (2010) study of the spiritual

aspects of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). Thus, the followers of LRA’s leader, Joseph

Kony, believe that he is possessed by a number of spirits. “These spirits introduce the rules into

the organization, which have to be strictly respected” (p. 62). LRA’s fighters who closely adhere

to these rules are believed to be made immune on the battlefield. Conversely, those who break

these rules will be killed by the spirits. Thus, LRA’s leadership uses the threat of faith-based

rewards and punishments to motivate its soldiers to fight better.

Another aspect of TFL, noted by Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, &

Alkema (2014), involves leaders serving as motivating role models for their followers. This

aspect of TFL is evident in Novaco, Cook, and Sarason’s (1981) description of military recruit

training, in which drill instructors serve as motivating role models for the recruits under their

command. This aspect of TFL is also evident in Titeca’s (2010) study of the spiritual aspects of

the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). Thus, LRA’s religious functionaries evidently serve as

motivating role models for the soldiers, who are expected to be fearless in battle, by walking

unarmed in front of them and ‘clearing’ the battlefield by sprinkling water. Finally, this aspect of

TFL is also evident in Lucas et al.’s (2010) discussion of the functions of Recruit Division

Commanders (RDCs), who “are the major … role models” for their recruits (p. 371).

Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, & Alkema (2014) note yet another aspect

of TFL, which consists of leaders putting emphasis on followers’ individual development. This

aspect of TFL is evident in Novaco, Cook, and Sarason’s (1981) description of military recruit

training, in which drill instructors put strong emphasis of the development of individual recruits

under their command. This aspect of TFL is also evident in Lucas et al.’s (2010) discussion of

the functions of Recruit Division Commanders (RDCs), who “are the major teachers, … and

enforcers of discipline” (p. 371). Hence, RDCs put strong emphasis on the individual

development of their Navy recruits.

Saxena’s (2014) overview of TFL is a little different. In fact, according to her,

transformational leaders, inspire their followers, through, sheer awe, to be risk-taking, change-

oriented, initiative-oriented, and proactive. Moreover, such leaders are charismatic and make the

work of followers meaningful; thus, compelling them to respond effectively and quickly to the

demands of work, and perform beyond expectations.

Thus, the five sources make it clear that transformational leaders (1) emphasize the

values and needs of the organization, over the values and needs of the followers; (2) use rewards,

and, sometimes, punishments, to create a greater focus on achieving high outcomes; (3) serve as

motivating role models; and (4) put emphasis on followers’ individual development.

3

Servant Leadership (SL)

Another theme common to all five sources is concept of servant leadership (SL) and its

aspects. Thus, according to Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, & Alkema (2014), one

aspect of SL is that servant leaders focus on developing their followers to the highest potential,

in areas such as task effectiveness, self-motivation, community stewardship, and future

leadership capabilities. This aspect of SL is evident in Novaco, Cook, and Sarason’s (1981)

description of military recruit training, in which drill instructors, the supreme leaders of military

recruits and their training, help recruits acquire discipline, motivation, physical conditioning,

weapons skills, and the willingness to help others; thus, developing their task effectiveness, self-

motivation, an aspect of community stewardship, and skills essential to becoming a military

leader. In this respect it is also important to note that the military drill instructors are evaluated

based on their ability to teach the required military behaviors to the recruits, while eliminating, in

them, the unwanted civilian behaviors and cognitions (Novaco, Cook, and Sarason, 1981). Thus,

the drill instructors are officially tasked with practicing this aspect of SL. Moreover, drill

instructors teach their recruits, through the employed training methods, that personal effort leads

to significant rewards; thus, developing self-motivation in their recruits. Finally, military drill

instructors help their recruits, through the employed training methods, to overcome the ingrained

negative self-perception that many recruits may have (Novaco, Cook, and Sarason, 1981); thus,

primarily developing their self-motivation and task effectiveness.

Also, Titeca’s (2010) study of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) suggests that its leader,

Joseph Kony, practices this aspect of SL. In particular, Kony puts considerable effort into

developing his followers’ self-motivation and task effectiveness. After all, Kony has convinced

his followers that he is possessed by powerful spirits. Consequently, aside from the belief,

mentioned earlier, on the part of Kony’s followers, that his spirits will punish them if they break

any of LRA’s rules; Kony’s followers also believe, for example, that desertion from the LRA

will not succeed because Kony can read their minds; or that those who participate in the pre-

battle anointing rituals, directed by Kony, will be protected by Kony’ spirits during battle. In

fact, this latter belief is so strong that even LRA’s battlefield commanders report that while they

were going into battle, following Kony’s anointing ritual, they sensed that something (i.e.

Kony’s spirits) was with them (Titeca, 2010). Thus, by convincing his followers that he is

possessed by powerful spirits, Kony has managed to turn his troops into highly disciplined

warriors, who are afraid to desert or fail in their duties, while having no fear of the enemy.

Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, & Alkema (2014) note yet another aspect

of SL, which consists of leaders providing vision and acquiring trust and credibility from their

followers. This aspect of SL is evident in Novaco, Cook, and Sarason’s (1981) description of

military recruit training, after which drill instructors, the supreme leaders of military recruits and

their training, are remembered by their recruits as exemplary individuals, in most cases, who

created lasting, and satisfying unit cohesiveness among their recruits; which indicates that they

manage to acquire trust and credibility in the eyes of their recruits. Also, Titeca’s (2010) study of

4

the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) suggests that its leader, Joseph Kony, practices this aspect of

SL. After all, the belief, on the part of his followers, in his strong spiritual powers, described

earlier, gives Kony great credibility, as a strong and trustworthy leader, in the eyes of his

followers. Moreover, Kony also provides the LRA with a vision of how it should operate to be

successful. For example, Kony has convinced his followers that the Uganda People’s Defence

Force (UPDF) uses powerful witch doctors to fight the LRA. In fact, LRA’s fighters believe that

they lose battles to UPDF only when UPDF successfully uses its witch doctors against them.

However, Kony is believed to be always aware of who and where these witch doctors are, and

what magical techniques they use to attack his troops. Hence, Kony always instructs his

followers in what to do to defeat them (Titeca, 2010).

Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, & Alkema (2014) also note that servant

leaders seek to understand the abilities, potentials, goals, needs, and desires of their followers,

using one-on-one communication, so as to make them perform at their best. This aspect of SL is

evident in Novaco, Cook, and Sarason’s (1981) description of military recruit training, in which

drill instructors, the supreme leaders of military recruits and their training, single out, for

increased personal attention and possible disciplinary action, those recruits who are slow or

unwilling in modifying their own behavior. This aspect of SL is also evident in Lucas et al.’s

(2010) discussion of the functions of Recruit Division Commanders (RDCs), the supreme leaders

of U.S. Navy recruits and their training, who are described as being dedicated and caring father

figures to their recruits.

Even though Saxena (2014) doesn’t specifically mention SL, she notes that leaders can

facilitate the expression of creative ideas and efforts by their followers; serve as mentors and

coaches; and provide the resources required by their followers. Hence, Saxena (2014) still

provides an overview of SL, albeit slightly different from that given by Van Dierendonck, Stam,

Boersma, De Windt, & Alkema (2014).

Thus, the five sources make it clear that servant leaders (1) focus on developing their

followers to the highest potential, in areas such as task effectiveness, self-motivation, community

stewardship, and future leadership capabilities; (2) seek to understand the abilities, potentials,

goals, needs, and desires of their followers, using one-on-one communication, so as to make

them perform at their best; and (3) provide vision and acquire trust and credibility from their

followers.

Psychological Needs

Another theme common to all five sources is the concept of psychological needs. And

according to Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, & Alkema (2014), self-determination

theory is the dominant theory in the field of psychological needs. So, one psychological need,

noted by the self-determination theory, is competence. Competence involves influencing and

effectively acting on one’s environment. Hence, offering optimal challenges and providing good

feedback is the best way to satisfy this need (Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, &

5

Alkema, 2014). Interestingly enough, according to Saxena (2014), neurotics have an unusually

strong need for competence. In particular, according to her, neurotics have a strong need to be

and feel competent in everything they do. This suggests, however, that any challenge, for a

neurotic, is a cause for anxiety. Therefore, in the workplace, it is best not to assign any

potentially challenging work to a neurotic. Conversely, Novaco, Cook, and Sarason (1981), in

the course of their discussion of military employment, note a related, though by no means

universal, psychological need – the need to be challenged. In fact, according to them, some

individuals enlist in the military primarily because they have a need to be confronted with a

challenge. Finally, Titeca’s (2010) study of the spiritual order of the Lord’s Resistance Army

(LRA) also notes a related set of human psychological needs. In particular, many of LRA’s

soldiers enter the organization by being abducted by it. However, the many spiritual rules and

practices, that are used by the LRA and are rooted in the local beliefs, help them to overcome the

inevitable, initial sense of uncertainty; by giving them a sense of control over their lives, giving

meaning to their activities, and functioning as a source of reassurance and motivation (Titeca,

2010). This suggests that having a sense of control over one’s life; having activities to engage in,

which one views as meaningful; being reassured about the favorability of the direction in which

one’s life is going; and being motivated to engage in one’s daily activities; are common

psychological needs.

Another psychological need, noted by the self-determination theory, is called relatedness.

Relatedness involves feeling connected and belonging to the people around you. Hence, the

individual experience of warmth, acceptance, and care, satisfy this need (Van Dierendonck,

Stam, Boersma, De Windt, & Alkema, 2014). Novaco, Cook, and Sarason (1981), in the course

of their discussion of military employment, note a similar psychological need – friendship. In

fact, friendship, for soldiers, is one of the key resources for coping with combat stress. As a

result, “The loss of friends in combat (due to death, injury, or transfer) is emotionally traumatic,

as extremely close attachments are formed among the members of combat units” (Novaco, Cook,

and Sarason, 1981, p. 9). Hence, it is rather intriguing that, according to Lucas et al. (2010), one

of the reasons, which makes people volunteer for military service, is the expectation of receiving

social support, from unit members and commanders, during the service. In fact, if true, this

Lucas et al.’s (2010) claim may suggest that many people who volunteer for military service

either have a higher than average need for social support/friendship or the amount of social

support/friendship in their civilian lives is below average. Consequently, out of desperation, they

convince themselves that the military is the institution where they will be able to receive the

much needed social support/friendship. As a result, for them (especially for those with higher

than average need for social support/friendship) social support from/friendship with members of

their combat units, forms an essential resource for coping with combat stress. Hence, if all of

these predictions are correct, it may be suggested that for those military specialties, for which

highly competitive selection is the norm, normal/below average need for friendship/social

support and normal/above average amount of social support/friendship in the recruit’s life

outside the military, should constitute an additional selection criteria. This will make it less likely

6

that military service members will be heavily dependent on social support/friendship from

members of their combat units (always a threat to operational efficiency) during deployment

involving combat; while also reducing the occurrence of psychological trauma, stemming from

the loss of one’s military friends in combat. Be as it may, Saxena (2014), in her discussion of the

Big Five Factor model of personality, notes a similar personality-related psychological need. In

particular, extraverts have a need for social interaction, excitement seeking, and emotional

expression.

The final psychological need, noted by the self-determination theory, is autonomy.

Autonomy involves experiencing, in one’s own behavior, one’s own initiative and will. Loose

control by the leader, so as to cause followers to perceive individual freedom of choice, can

satisfy this need (Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, & Alkema, 2014).

Despite the influence of self-determination theory, there are many psychological needs

which it doesn’t describe. For example, according to Novaco, Cook, and Sarason (1981), military

employment provides alternative avenues for social mobility, and satisfies the needs and desires

of distinctive social sub-groups (e.g. adventures seekers and risk takers). This suggests that social

mobility, and various needs and desires, unique to distinctive social sub-groups, constitute

additional human psychological needs. Also, Titeca’s (2010) study of the spiritual order of the

Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) notes that LRA’s spiritual order provides its new members with

renewed values, identity, and beliefs; suggesting that having values, identity and beliefs are an

additional set of common psychological needs. Moreover, Saxena’s (2014) discussion of the Big

Five Factor model of personality describes a number of personality-related psychological needs,

which are far from those described by the self-determination theory. Thus, individuals, whose

personality is characterized by openness to experience, have a need for variety. While, agreeable

individuals have a need to cooperate with others and to conform. Finally, conscientious

individuals have a need to employ detailed and attentive planning in almost everything they do.

Thus, the five sources make it clear that people have a large variety of psychological

needs. Moreover, ultimately, different people have different psychological needs; and even

people with seemingly identical psychological needs often cannot satisfy them through identical

means.

Conclusion

Thus, we have seen that that transformational leaders (1) emphasize the values and needs

of the organization, over the values and needs of the followers; (2) use rewards, and, sometimes,

punishments, to create a greater focus on achieving higher outcomes; (3) serve as motivating role

models; and (4) put emphasis on followers’ individual development. We have also seen that

servant leaders (1) focus on developing their followers to the highest potential, in areas such as

task effectiveness, self-motivation, community stewardship, and future leadership capabilities;

(2) seek to understand the abilities, potentials, goals, needs, and desires of their followers, using

one-on-one communication, so as to make them perform at their best; and (3) provide vision and

7

acquire trust and credibility from their followers. Finally, we have seen that people have a large

variety of psychological needs. Moreover, ultimately, different people have different

psychological needs; and even people with seemingly identical psychological needs often cannot

satisfy them through identical means. Hence, the surveyed literature illustrates some of the

defining characteristics of transformational (TFL) and servant leadership (SL) styles. It also

shows that both TFL and SL are widely used by leaders of different organizational types. In

addition, the surveyed literature illustrates the large variety of human psychological needs and

their frequent variation from individual to individual.

References

Lucas, J. W., Segal, D. R., Whitestone, Y., Segal, M. W., White, M. A., & Mottern, J. A. (2010).

The role of recruit division commanders in graduation from U.S. Navy recruit training.

Military Psychology, 22(4), 369-384. doi: 10.1080/08995605.2010.513227

Novaco, R. W., Cook, T. M., Sarason, I. G. (1981). Military recruit training: An arena for stress

coping skills. Technical Report AR-003. Retrieved from

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA09781

6

Saxena, S. (2014). Are transformational leaders creative and creative leaders transformational?

An attempted synthesis through the Big Five Factor Model of Personality

Lens. Aweshkar Research Journal, 18(2), 30-51.

Titeca, K. (2010). The spiritual order of the LRA. In T. Allen & K. Vlassenroot (Eds.), The

Lord’s Resistance Army: Myth and reality (pp. 59-73). London, UK: Zed Books.

Van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., De Windt, N., & Alkema, J. (2014). Same

difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and

transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 544-

562. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.014