I thought that Bass’s definition of transformational leadership was accurate and made sense. When thinking about Burns’s and Bass’s differing ideologies, I thought about what it realistically takes to transform a follower into a leader. Cuoto dives into the fundamental aspects of the definition when he writes, “Since Bass, transformational leadership is more often used in leadership literature than transforming leadership with the implied change of state of being or character of a leader rather than of a process in which a leader participates.” In my opinion, Bass’s reasoning behind his definition makes more sense because developing leadership skills is a partially determined by the individual’s initiative. This is because a leader should be developed partially by their own natural abilities.
Yet, I will acknowledge that Burn’s ideology behind transforming leadership is relevant and applicable as well. It is important for the leader to follower relationship to be interactive because it will enhance the growth of the individual. This is also where I saw the Great Man Theory appear in the differing definitions of transformational leadership from Bass and Burns. While Bass believes that structure for creating leaders should be influenced by the individual’s own initiative and talent, Burns believes that any individual has the capacity to lead. In my opinion, the suitable definition of transformational leadership falls somewhere in between these two scholars. While it is important to develop and teach leadership skills organically, I believe that some people are better suited to lead and hard work should be rewarded.
The fields that are emphasized within the two scholars definitions also determine their differing ideologies. Bass using his ideology more within formal organizations, like businesses, while Burns focuses more on social movements to mold his understanding on how leaders are developed. The one way relationship between follower and leader may be effective in the military and in certain business, but I don’t believe it should and will apply in every situation. This is why Burns and Bass should look to combine their ideologies in order to create a more relevant and accurate definition of transformational leadership.
I like how you brought in the concept of Great Man Theory. I didn’t see how the comparison between Burns’ and Bass’ definitions of transformational leadership could be linked to Great Man.
I also really like how you connected this to the Great Man Theory and I agree that a lot of times, people can go through a situation that forces them to step into a leadership position and they may start out as a reluctant leader, but they more than likely have some of those traits that were mentioned which are highly prevalent in common leaders.
I thought it was interesting that you brought in the Great Man Theory because I think that is was definitely alluded to, but because I disagree with the Great Man Theory, hearing it makes me shy away from the given definitions of a leader. I think this might be why Bass and Burns did not explicitly reference it.