Comparative Analysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles as Drivers of Organizational Innovation and Ambidexterity

Sixto Ricardo Baez Monegro

doi:doi:10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Comparative Analysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles as Drivers of Organizational Innovation and Ambidexterity

Sixto Ricardo Baez Monegro^*

Published in Innovation Economics (Volume 1, Issue 3)

Received: 1 July 2026 Accepted: 29 July 2026 Published: 29 September 2026

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

In the contemporary post-pandemic organizational scenery, meaning rapid digital transitions alongside harsh socio technical disruptions, organizations need leadership paradigms that can, at the same time, protect operational steadiness and encourage strategic innovation. This study offers an extensive systematic literature review mixed with a meta-analytic synthesis, aimed at looking at the relative validities, structural movements, and contextual limits of transformational and transactional leadership approaches. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidance, and then we synthesized quantitative outcomes from 87 separate study sources that contained 626 correlations and involved 21,815 participants. Methodological quality in the primary literature was evaluated critically with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. The quantitative pooling indicates transformational leadership has the highest overall true score validity. 44 across organizational performance outcomes, and it is followed closely by transactional contingent reward at. 39. By comparison, laissez-faire leadership shows a notable negative validity of -. 37. Also, active and passive management-by-exception turned out to be highly inconsistent, with relationships that change meaningfully depending on the context. Overall, the results give firm empirical support to the augmentation hypothesis, suggesting transformational leadership builds on a transactional baseline, rather than replacing it. The study also outlines a unifying, stage sensitive model for ambidextrous leadership: transformational “opening” behaviors tend to nurture explorative innovation, whereas transactional “closing” behaviors strengthen exploitative execution. Finally, regression modeling indicates that structural constraints, such as organizational unit size and geographical setting, meaningfully forecast when constructive leadership behaviors appear versus when passive avoidant patterns show up.

Published in	Innovation Economics (Volume 1, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11
Page(s)	121-133
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Organizational Behavior, Contingent Reward, Organizational Ambidexterity, Systematic Literature Review

References

[1]	Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4
[2]	Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (TM). Mind Garden, Inc. Menlo Park, CA, 1-10. https://www.mindgarden.com
[3]	Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166789
[4]	Bass, B. M., & Bass Bernard, M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations (Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 481-484). New York: Free press.
[5]	Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1970586434899106226
[6]	Breevaart, K., & Zacher, H. (2019). Daily transformational leadership and employee engagement: The role of trust and self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24(1), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000112
[7]	Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
[8]	Hamzah, A., Wahyudi, W., & Br Ginting, I. H. (2026). Leadership styles in healthcare settings and their impact on clinical outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brilliant International Journal of Management and Tourism, 6(1), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.55606/bijmt.v6i1.6764
[9]	Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.891
[10]	Jovanovic, D., & Ciric, M. (2016). Contextual predictors of leadership styles: School size and geographic dynamics. Journal of Educational Administration, 16(5), 675–689. https://doi.org/10.2227/7102/16/5/675
[11]	Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
[12]	Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and selected substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of R&D project teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.202
[13]	Moola, S., Munn, Z., Tufanaru, C., Aromataris, E., Sears, K., Sfetcu, R., Currie, M., Qureshi, R., Mattis, P., Lisy, K., & Mu, P.-F. (2020). Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-08
[14]	Muktamar, A., & Nurnaningsih, N. (2024). Leadership styles and work engagement: A systematic literature review on effective leadership practices. Productivity, 1(11), 1505–1524. https://doi.org/10.62207
[15]	Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7.ª ed.). SAGE Publications.
[16]	Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S.,... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(71), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
[17]	Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.03.002
[18]	Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014
[19]	Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept-based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.577
[20]	Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8.ª ed.). Pearson.
[21]	March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
[22]	Taylor, R., Thomas, C., & Anderson, M. (2023). Transformational leadership dimensions and clinical quality in healthcare environments. Journal of Nursing Management, 31(3), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13890
[23]	Wong, C. A., Cummings, G. G., & Ducharme, L. (2013). The relationship between nursing leadership and patient outcomes: A systematic review update. Journal of Nursing Management, 21(5), 709–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12116

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Monegro, S. R. B. (2026). Comparative Analysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles as Drivers of Organizational Innovation and Ambidexterity. Innovation Economics, 1(3), 121-133. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Monegro, S. R. B. Comparative Analysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles as Drivers of Organizational Innovation and Ambidexterity. Innov. Econ. 2026, 1(3), 121-133. doi: 10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Monegro SRB. Comparative Analysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles as Drivers of Organizational Innovation and Ambidexterity. Innov Econ. 2026;1(3):121-133. doi: 10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11,
  author = {Sixto Ricardo Baez Monegro},
  title = {Comparative Analysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles as Drivers of Organizational Innovation and Ambidexterity},
  journal = {Innovation Economics},
  volume = {1},
  number = {3},
  pages = {121-133},
  doi = {10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.iecon.20260103.11},
  abstract = {In the contemporary post-pandemic organizational scenery, meaning rapid digital transitions alongside harsh socio technical disruptions, organizations need leadership paradigms that can, at the same time, protect operational steadiness and encourage strategic innovation. This study offers an extensive systematic literature review mixed with a meta-analytic synthesis, aimed at looking at the relative validities, structural movements, and contextual limits of transformational and transactional leadership approaches. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidance, and then we synthesized quantitative outcomes from 87 separate study sources that contained 626 correlations and involved 21,815 participants. Methodological quality in the primary literature was evaluated critically with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. The quantitative pooling indicates transformational leadership has the highest overall true score validity. 44 across organizational performance outcomes, and it is followed closely by transactional contingent reward at. 39. By comparison, laissez-faire leadership shows a notable negative validity of -. 37. Also, active and passive management-by-exception turned out to be highly inconsistent, with relationships that change meaningfully depending on the context. Overall, the results give firm empirical support to the augmentation hypothesis, suggesting transformational leadership builds on a transactional baseline, rather than replacing it. The study also outlines a unifying, stage sensitive model for ambidextrous leadership: transformational “opening” behaviors tend to nurture explorative innovation, whereas transactional “closing” behaviors strengthen exploitative execution. Finally, regression modeling indicates that structural constraints, such as organizational unit size and geographical setting, meaningfully forecast when constructive leadership behaviors appear versus when passive avoidant patterns show up.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Comparative Analysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles as Drivers of Organizational Innovation and Ambidexterity
AU  - Sixto Ricardo Baez Monegro
Y1  - 2026/09/29
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11
T2  - Innovation Economics
JF  - Innovation Economics
JO  - Innovation Economics
SP  - 121
EP  - 133
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 3071-4931
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11
AB  - In the contemporary post-pandemic organizational scenery, meaning rapid digital transitions alongside harsh socio technical disruptions, organizations need leadership paradigms that can, at the same time, protect operational steadiness and encourage strategic innovation. This study offers an extensive systematic literature review mixed with a meta-analytic synthesis, aimed at looking at the relative validities, structural movements, and contextual limits of transformational and transactional leadership approaches. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidance, and then we synthesized quantitative outcomes from 87 separate study sources that contained 626 correlations and involved 21,815 participants. Methodological quality in the primary literature was evaluated critically with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. The quantitative pooling indicates transformational leadership has the highest overall true score validity. 44 across organizational performance outcomes, and it is followed closely by transactional contingent reward at. 39. By comparison, laissez-faire leadership shows a notable negative validity of -. 37. Also, active and passive management-by-exception turned out to be highly inconsistent, with relationships that change meaningfully depending on the context. Overall, the results give firm empirical support to the augmentation hypothesis, suggesting transformational leadership builds on a transactional baseline, rather than replacing it. The study also outlines a unifying, stage sensitive model for ambidextrous leadership: transformational “opening” behaviors tend to nurture explorative innovation, whereas transactional “closing” behaviors strengthen exploitative execution. Finally, regression modeling indicates that structural constraints, such as organizational unit size and geographical setting, meaningfully forecast when constructive leadership behaviors appear versus when passive avoidant patterns show up.
VL  - 1
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Sixto Ricardo Baez Monegro

Business School, Broward International University, Miami, United States of America

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0005-9955-8833

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Monegro, S. R. B. (2026). Comparative Analysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles as Drivers of Organizational Innovation and Ambidexterity. Innovation Economics, 1(3), 121-133. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Monegro, S. R. B. Comparative Analysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles as Drivers of Organizational Innovation and Ambidexterity. Innov. Econ. 2026, 1(3), 121-133. doi: 10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Monegro SRB. Comparative Analysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles as Drivers of Organizational Innovation and Ambidexterity. Innov Econ. 2026;1(3):121-133. doi: 10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11,
  author = {Sixto Ricardo Baez Monegro},
  title = {Comparative Analysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles as Drivers of Organizational Innovation and Ambidexterity},
  journal = {Innovation Economics},
  volume = {1},
  number = {3},
  pages = {121-133},
  doi = {10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.iecon.20260103.11},
  abstract = {In the contemporary post-pandemic organizational scenery, meaning rapid digital transitions alongside harsh socio technical disruptions, organizations need leadership paradigms that can, at the same time, protect operational steadiness and encourage strategic innovation. This study offers an extensive systematic literature review mixed with a meta-analytic synthesis, aimed at looking at the relative validities, structural movements, and contextual limits of transformational and transactional leadership approaches. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidance, and then we synthesized quantitative outcomes from 87 separate study sources that contained 626 correlations and involved 21,815 participants. Methodological quality in the primary literature was evaluated critically with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. The quantitative pooling indicates transformational leadership has the highest overall true score validity. 44 across organizational performance outcomes, and it is followed closely by transactional contingent reward at. 39. By comparison, laissez-faire leadership shows a notable negative validity of -. 37. Also, active and passive management-by-exception turned out to be highly inconsistent, with relationships that change meaningfully depending on the context. Overall, the results give firm empirical support to the augmentation hypothesis, suggesting transformational leadership builds on a transactional baseline, rather than replacing it. The study also outlines a unifying, stage sensitive model for ambidextrous leadership: transformational “opening” behaviors tend to nurture explorative innovation, whereas transactional “closing” behaviors strengthen exploitative execution. Finally, regression modeling indicates that structural constraints, such as organizational unit size and geographical setting, meaningfully forecast when constructive leadership behaviors appear versus when passive avoidant patterns show up.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Comparative Analysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles as Drivers of Organizational Innovation and Ambidexterity
AU  - Sixto Ricardo Baez Monegro
Y1  - 2026/09/29
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11
T2  - Innovation Economics
JF  - Innovation Economics
JO  - Innovation Economics
SP  - 121
EP  - 133
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 3071-4931
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.iecon.20260103.11
AB  - In the contemporary post-pandemic organizational scenery, meaning rapid digital transitions alongside harsh socio technical disruptions, organizations need leadership paradigms that can, at the same time, protect operational steadiness and encourage strategic innovation. This study offers an extensive systematic literature review mixed with a meta-analytic synthesis, aimed at looking at the relative validities, structural movements, and contextual limits of transformational and transactional leadership approaches. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidance, and then we synthesized quantitative outcomes from 87 separate study sources that contained 626 correlations and involved 21,815 participants. Methodological quality in the primary literature was evaluated critically with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. The quantitative pooling indicates transformational leadership has the highest overall true score validity. 44 across organizational performance outcomes, and it is followed closely by transactional contingent reward at. 39. By comparison, laissez-faire leadership shows a notable negative validity of -. 37. Also, active and passive management-by-exception turned out to be highly inconsistent, with relationships that change meaningfully depending on the context. Overall, the results give firm empirical support to the augmentation hypothesis, suggesting transformational leadership builds on a transactional baseline, rather than replacing it. The study also outlines a unifying, stage sensitive model for ambidextrous leadership: transformational “opening” behaviors tend to nurture explorative innovation, whereas transactional “closing” behaviors strengthen exploitative execution. Finally, regression modeling indicates that structural constraints, such as organizational unit size and geographical setting, meaningfully forecast when constructive leadership behaviors appear versus when passive avoidant patterns show up.
VL  - 1
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download