The difference between transactional and transforming leadership is in my opinion what differentiates political leaders and social leaders. As defined in the readings, transactional leadership is more of a trade-off between the leader and the followers which can be through votes. This is important because this means that the leader, like the followers, want something from each other and some deception is bound to happen. A candidate, for example, could without their true goals during candidacy and promote more promises than they will complete in order to get the votes they need.
On the other hand, transcending leadership is more of collaborative work. It is one in which people work together to reach a goal that pushes both groups forward. That is why I believe this type of leadership is seen in social leaders like MLK. He formed a relationship with his followers to fight for equality. That relationship was key to the success of the goal. Keeping this in mind, do you think it is possible for a president to be a transcending leader while stilling having the trade-off of votes?
In the end of the post, you brought up a great question. Bass discussed a little bit in his article about how transactional and transformational leadership are not the rigid, black and white structures we understand them to be. Sometimes a leader can be doing a little bit of both. Similar to discussions we have had in class, it goes back to this question of whether or not politicians run for office for personal power/ambition, or to serve the people. It is probably both .