Okay so honestly this felt like a repeat of the last readings, just describing and giving somewhat of examples of transformational and transactional leadership. however these sets of readings did it from a secondary source point of view. it was nice to see another University of Richmond person though. I especially like Professor Couto’s idea that Burns completely removes transformational leadership from what humanity can achieve. that is an interesting concept to me because we discussed the fact that burns said transformational leader was only good never bad, however in humanity that cant be true as we can find ways to twist any thing.
I also did like how the S.T.O. article gave a straight forward list of things like pros and cons of transactional leadership. this is nice because as we said in class today transactional leadership gets really over looked just because of the fact that it is not transformational leadership, which for some reason is viewed as the pinnacle of leadership. It just shows that humans think most things can either be one or the other, right or wrong, but the article shows that that is not the case neither type is bad leading just different.
I agree with your opinion on the fact that transactional leadership is overlooked just because it isn’t transformational leadership. I believe both have the potential to be dangerous or very beneficial. It’s all about what the leader and followers make of the relationship.
I agree with how you stated that transactional leadership is overlooked or deemed as bad, when in reality, without it, many of our world’s fields of work wouldn’t run effectively or efficiently. For example, if everyone was a transformational leader, then our military would be a bunch of softies who are inspired or extrinsically motivated to fight, not self-motivated or driven by internal forces, which influences how successful our military is.
Great point! I think that transactional leadership isn’t put in the best light because it is looked at as some exchange rather than genuine interaction. However, sometimes this is very necessary too.
I agree that the pros and cons were helpful to understanding these two types of leadership. I also think that transactional leadership is effective when used right, and both types of leadership can be powerful in their own ways, but transformational has that crazy idea of being “changing.”
Nice! I also liked how the S.T.O. article did an unbiased, clear comparison of the two. There are definitely pros and cons to both and I feel like this helped me gain a better understanding of transactional leadership!
I agree that transactional leadership is an effective method of leadership. It can sometimes be seen in a bad way, but an exchange of value can be very positive.