I thought the critique and revision of transforming leadership in the Couto reading was interesting because it added another layer of complexity to the Bass reading. In contrast to Burn’s original definition of transforming leadership, Bass’s model does not include the aspect of social change, exclusively focusing on executive leadership.
A particularly interesting point for me was when Couto talked about how “Burn’s transforming leadership is attractive, [but] it may be unattainable and distract us from the important task of being as effective as one can be … with little hope of epoch change” (Couto 107). It seems that despite the idealistic nature of transforming leadership, it is not quite as realistic and easy to put into practice as the transformational model of leadership. This led me to wonder that if there is little hope for epoch change through transformational leadership, what models of leadership/other would Couto use to explain major social movements such as the Civil Rights Movement that clearly demonstrate an epoch change.
One of the main points in the other reading was about how transactional leadership uses penalties and rewards to motivate employees and how money and perks are powerful motivators. Because transactional leadership is primarily results driven, there does not seem to be any value in getting employee involvement in the decision-making process. While this may be advantageous for structures like the military, I worry that it would be detrimental for most groups, because it automatically imposes values and goals onto all the followers, regardless of if those values and goals are what are best for the group.
When you mentioned the question of whether or not there is little hope for epoch change through transformational leadership, I thought about how important it is for a leader to be both transformational and transactional. This is because transformational leadership works better as a collective movement, while transactional leadership leans more towards self-interest; therefore, a balance of both would be ideal.
The quote you included in your post also left me thinking. It made me wonder if transformational leadership is hard to achieve, does it do more harm than good to attempt to be a transformational leader? Sure, it is great to want to inspire others and motivate them to create change, but if you are going to do that in an ineffective way it would probably be more useful to use some other type of leadership though transformational leadership can reap many benefits.
I thought your point about a lack of employee involvement in the decision-making process was crucial to understanding this concept. This made me think of our class discussion of morality; if transactional leadership is ultimately only about the end results, does it even matter if the process is a moral one?