Burns definition of leadership is that it is “leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and motivations of both leaders and followers.” While no definition will be perfect, I think that this is one of the best definitions of leadership we have gotten yet because it mentions that the motivation should be for the leader and the follower. I do not believe that the leader should be leading only for his personal goals, but he should also not only be leading for other people. As Burns states, leadership should have a result that help both the leaders and the followers.
Bass’s article about transformational and transactional leadership is interesting because it is clear that there can not be one without the other. I think that people are looking to choose one as a leadership technique instead of using the best parts of each one. If there was a scenario where one had to be chosen, transformational leadership would be better. This is because transformational leaders, for example a president, will articulate to their followers what they can do for their country. This is a beneficial tactic because it is important for the people to understand the cause. Transactional leadership is the weaker option because they cater to the immediate self-interests of their followers, which may not be for their best interest.
I also thought it was interesting that the best leadership requires both transformational and transactional leadership. It seemed like leaders started out in a transactional model, that could develop into a transformational model the more the leader was familiar with their followers. I am curious if there is an optimal ratio between the two concepts that would make for the most effective leader?