The two articles dissect as well as discuss the differences and similarities in Transactional as well as transformational leadership. Transactional leadership occurs when someone takes the first step into contacting others with the intent to exchanged items of value. It is mainly used for personal benefit and after the exchange is over they have no other reason to continue the relationship. Whereas with the transformational leadership style people or just one person interact with one another in a way in which both the leader and the follower motivate one another to reach higher levels of morality. Essentially the main differences are in Transformational the leader inspires, intellectually stimulates, and is considerate of them. Whereas transactional is in it for the end goal of a personal gain.
An excellent example of a transitional leader is Mahatma Gandhi. He changed as well as transformed an entire nation as well as it’s people. He did so by learning how to empathize with the nation and appealing to their values as well as feelings. He was able to get his people to accomplish their goal of gaining independence from British rule. An example of a transactional leader is Bill Gates. In order to get Microsoft as a multi-billion-dollar company, he had to align himself with many others to perform transactions in order to promote himself as well as the company.
I really like your use of Gandhi as a transitional leader. I agree with you fully on this, I also believe that Gandhi was able to connected on a different leave with the nation and because of this he was able to transform the nation. My question is then, how do we evaluate the importance of emotional expressiveness and responsiveness within the success of a transformational leadership.
I love your two examples. The Bass reading made it seem as though transformational leadership is always better however, in the instances of large business I agree that it would be more beneficial to be a transactional leader. I do not think that it is necessarily a negative thing to be a transactional in some cases.