The STU article provided a very interesting example of how and when transactional leadership is needed. In order to achieve a goal, most people need routine discipline and structure. A reward-penalty system can be very effective in motivating employees/followers since it establishes and promotes a culture of fairness since employees will be rewarded for meeting and exceeding required expectations. The article also discusses how these immediate self needs that followers seek to address, such as paying bills and buying food, are most often met through transactional relationships. This is also similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, since followers and people in general will have a hard time reaching levels of self actualization or self transcendence if they are not meeting basic physiological needs that are usually accomplished through transactional relationships.
The context ultimately decides which leadership style is more effect. Of course, Couto and STU article both note that no leader is either one type of leader or the other, they will often use both transactional styles and transformational methods. However, the goals a leader wants to accomplish will dictate which side they lead to and how they will interact with their followers. I liked the transactional leadership method discussed in class today about congressmen/women- we vote for them, and in exchange hope that they will represent our views on the national level. I think politicians can also be transformational leaders in the sense that they seek to change the ways followers think and use inspiring rhetoric to elevate them to a higher moral ground. What a “higher moral ground” is, is still a big question since the field of leadership studies is relatively new, many of these definitions are subject to the eye of the beholder. As the field of leadership studies develops, these definitions may change, but many moral and ethical questions will still remain relative to the person who is actually making the decisions.
Be First to Comment