By Dr. Gilbert A. Ang’ana
Dean School of Leadership, PAC University.

In Kenya today, the call for genuine transformation in leadership rings louder than ever. From the counties to Parliament, the nation has witnessed leaders who ascended to office on promises of reform only to perpetuate the very vices they vowed to uproot: corruption, ethnic politics, and patronage networks. This recurring pattern reveals a deeper problem: transformation that focuses only on external results while neglecting the leader’s own inner renewal.

As the country navigates rapid urbanisation, increased youth involvement in governance and politics, economic shocks, and the uncertainties of a pre-election climate, it is clear that sustainable change cannot be engineered solely through policy reforms or strategic plans. Transformational leadership begins from the inside out, a deliberate reshaping of mind, character, and values that equips leaders to inspire authentic progress. It is within this Kenyan reality, where hope often collides with disillusionment, that the conversation on transformation as both the seed and the fruit of leadership becomes urgent and necessary. This is my thesis in this article.

Introduction
The question of whether transformation is an antecedent or an outcome of leadership may appear, at first glance, to be an academic debate. Yet, upon closer reflection, it touches on one of the most critical issues of our time: how leaders are formed and how they, in turn, shape societies. If we misunderstand the relationship between leadership and transformation, we risk producing leaders who may promise change but lack the capacity to deliver it; or worse, leaders who deliver change of a destructive kind. The unfortunate part is that this risk is already a reality in our society today.

At the centre of this reflective article lies transformational leadership theory, which has gained popularity in organisational and political studies over the last four decades. Transformational leadership, first conceptualised by James MacGregor Burns and later expanded by Bernard Bass, suggests that leaders inspire and motivate followers to transcend their immediate self-interest for the sake of higher goals, achieving outcomes greater than the sum of individual contributions. It rests on four key dimensions: idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration.

Most leadership discourse claims transformation as an outcome, the collective change in organisations, communities, or nations brought about through leadership. Yet, such a perspective risks overlooking a deeper, antecedent reality: that transformation must first occur within the leader. In this article, I claim that without inner renewal, outward transformation may be shallow, temporary, or even harmful.

The Case for Transformation as an Antecedent
Biblical Wisdom and the Renewal of the Mind
The Bible, in the book of Romans 12: 2 offers a foundational perspective of transformational leadership: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind”. This is the basis of my argument in this article. The emphasis on this verse is not external performance or outcome but internal renewal. Transformation in leadership in this sense begins not with techniques, charisma, or even vision statements, but with the transformation of the leader’s own mind, values, and character.

The argument for antecedent transformation resonates strongly with the gaps we see today – Africa’s leadership and governance crises. Many leaders across various contexts, more so in political leadership ascend to office promising reform and renewal. Yet, because they themselves remain untransformed, entangled in corruption, patronage, or ethnicised politics, they reproduce the very dysfunctions they vowed to dismantle. It is on basis of such realities that I argue that transformation as antecedent becomes not optional but foundational.

Authenticity and Integrity
The moral core of leadership lies in authenticity, leaders whose words and actions flow from a consistent and transformed inner life. When transformation is treated solely as an outcome, leadership risks being reduced to manipulation: a set of tools to mobilise followers toward predetermined goals, regardless of the leader’s own character. By contrast, leaders who embody transformation in themselves inspire trust and legitimacy. As scholars like Avolio and Gardner argue in their work on authentic leadership, personal transformation is essential to sustaining long-term influence.

At Pan Africa Christian (PAC) University, our 2025/26 academic year theme, Authentically Christians, underscores the conviction that transformation begins within before it manifests in outward action. The theme aligns with the charge in Philippians 4:8–9, where leaders are exhorted to dwell on “whatever is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and admirable”. Such a focus invites a disciplined renewal of the mind, shaping character and conduct through deliberate contemplation of virtues that reflect Christ. Inner transformation, therefore, is not a peripheral ideal but the core engine of leadership and societal change.

Resilience in Complex Times
Today’s world is marked by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA). Leaders cannot rely merely on positional authority or managerial competence; they must possess deep reservoirs of resilience, emotional intelligence, and adaptability. Such qualities emerge not from external outcomes but from inner transformation, an antecedent process that equips leaders to remain steady amid turbulence. As Heifetz and Linsky note in Leadership on the Line, adaptive leadership begins with self-examination and the capacity to regulate one’s inner world.

Moreover, the credibility to inspire transformation in others springs from this inner work. A leader who has confronted personal biases, clarified core values, and cultivated moral courage demonstrates a stability that cannot be faked. Such internal formation becomes the wellspring from which vision, empathy, and strategic foresight flow. Without this inner metamorphosis, even the most effective leadership techniques amount to little more than performance, leaving followers unconvinced and organizations vulnerable when crises strike.

The Counter-Argument: Transformation as an Outcome
To be fair, many scholars and practitioners insist transformation should be understood primarily as an outcome. Their reasoning is grounded in several arguments. First, from observable evidence. Leadership studies, particularly in organisational leadership, often depend on observable data. Changes in employee engagement, innovation levels, or organisational culture are tangible and measurable. It is far easier to demonstrate transformation through these external outcomes than through the invisible renewal of a leader’s mind or character, which defies measurement.

Second, followers are viewed as co-creators. Leadership is not a solitary act; it is relational. Burns (1978) emphasised that transformational leadership is a process where leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. By this view, transformation cannot be the responsibility of the leader alone as an antecedent but emerges as an outcome of interaction between leader and followers.

Finally, the argument is based on the reality of pragmatic accountability. In today’s world, boards, shareholders, and citizens demand results. They are less concerned with whether a leader has undergone inner renewal than with whether tangible change occurs. From this perspective, transformation must be framed as an outcome to justify a leader’s legitimacy. A president who fails to improve living standards or a CEO who fails to grow shareholder value cannot credibly claim to be “transformed,” however sincere their inner journey.

Critiquing the Outcome-first Discourse
While persuasive, the outcome-only argument suffers from several flaws. First, it reduces leadership to performance metrics. Transformation is not always immediately visible. Some of the most profound changes are shifts in culture, values, or consciousness that may not show up in quarterly reports or electoral cycles. Treating transformation only as an outcome risk trivializing leadership into technocratic efficiency. Why? I share two key pointers below:

First, it ignores the danger of untransformed leaders producing toxic change. History is filled with examples of leaders who mobilized followers and achieved transformation, yet destructive transformation. Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, apartheid South Africa, or kleptocratic regimes in Africa all brought about change, but toward devastating ends. Without antecedent transformation of character, the outcomes of leadership can be catastrophic.

Further, it sidelines moral responsibility. When leadership is evaluated only by outcomes, leaders may justify Machiavellian means (“the ends justify the means”). Yet leadership is not only about achieving results, but also about how those results are pursued. Framing transformation as antecedent restores the primacy of moral responsibility. However, it may be reductive to treat transformation solely as either an antecedent or an outcome. Leadership is a dynamic process in which personal renewal and collective change continually inform one another. A more prudent approach is to recognize transformation as both a beginning that shapes the leader’s character and an end that manifests in the systems and people they influence.

Toward a Middle Path: Transformation as Both Antecedent and Outcome
The dichotomy between antecedent and outcome is, perhaps, false. The most compelling view is to see transformation as a continuum: a transformed leader (antecedent) catalyzes a transformed community or organization (outcome). The two are inseparably linked. A helpful analogy is viewing leadership as a tree. The inner transformation of the leader is the seed. The transformation of followers, organizations, and societies is the fruit. A seed without fruit is incomplete, but fruit without a seed is impossible.

This continuum calls for a reorientation of leadership development. Training programs must go beyond teaching skills, communication, strategy, project management, and foster deep personal renewal: values clarification, emotional intelligence, moral courage, and discernment. Simultaneously, leaders must be equipped to translate that inner renewal into systemic and structural change.

This is precisely our commitment at PAC University. Our motto, “Where Leaders Are Made,” captures this dual focus. Our programs are intentionally designed to nurture leaders’ inner transformation first, equipping them with the character and spiritual grounding needed to create the values-based societal transformation that our communities and nations urgently require.

Why This Matters for Africa and Beyond
For Africa, the stakes of this articles insights are particularly high. The continent has witnessed waves of leaders celebrated for their rhetoric of transformation, only for them to replicate corruption, nepotism, or authoritarianism once in power. This recurring tragedy underscores that transformation cannot be reduced to outcomes alone. Without leaders first undergoing inner transformation, renewing their minds, breaking free from destructive patterns, and embracing servant leadership, societies will continue to experience false dawns.

But the message is not only for Africa. In an era of global crises, climate change, economic inequality, technological disruption, societies everywhere need leaders who embody both antecedent and outcome transformation. Leaders who are transformed inwardly yet incapable of delivering external results fail the public trust. Conversely, leaders who deliver outcomes without inner renewal risk steering societies toward shallow or destructive ends.

The renewal of leadership is existential. Transformation must be understood as both seed and fruit, both beginning and end. To neglect its antecedent dimension is to risk hollow change; to ignore its outcome is to indulge in private piety with no public relevance. As Scripture reminds us, transformation begins with the renewal of the mind. Yet leadership demands more: that this renewal be embodied in action, producing tangible change in systems, institutions, and lives. A transformed leader birthing a transformed world, this is the essence of authentic leadership. As PAC University, this is the embodiment of the 2025/26 theme “Authentically Christians.”

About the Author
Dr. Gilbert A. Ang’ana is the Dean School of Leadership at Pan Africa Christian (PAC) University. He is a senior lecturer and practitioner in leadership and public policy, and author of several leadership books. His research focus is on collaborative leadership, good governance, and responsible leadership in an African context. Check out his publications at https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=iCKGWqgAAAAJ&hl=en