After reading the articles, they cleared up the meanings of the types of leadership even more. I feel as though I have an even better understanding of transactional leadership especially because of the article by STU. However in the article is says, “Transactional leaders differ from charismatic and transformational leaders in both structure and method.” I believe transactional leaders have to have some degree of charisma as well. A transactional leader is usually in a commanding role so charisma is needed in order to get people to do what you want even if it’s negative enforcement.
I thought it was interesting how they distinguished the pros and cons of transactional leadership. One con that stuck out to me was when it said transactional leadership “Does not reward personal initiative.” If that is the case the whole method seems pointless to me. That is why I think transformational leadership is more effective, especially for long term situations.
I agree with your statement that transactional leaders do have a certain amount of charisma. It would be very hard to get their follower to do what they want if they had no charisma.
I completely agree with you. The transactional article definitely shed a better light on the concept. The earlier articles, in my opinion, made transformational leadership seem like the ideal. However, the STU article showed both sides of each.
I agree with your statement on how the article cleared up the meaning of leadership. I also agree that I have a better understanding of leadership in general.
I also think that transactional leadership would require a bit of charisma, but compared to transformational… not as much. Like if the incentive is profit, you don’t really have to change anyone’s ideologies to get people to want profit. However, I think you would have to have some charisma for those people to accept you as the best means for profit (to be accepted as the leader). I think charisma definitely makes that sort of leadership most effective.
I agree with you that they gave better definitions, which helped the reader understand that type of leadership better. I think by distinguishing the pros and cons they are just showing there are flaws to the methods, as there would be as a transformational leader too.
I really liked this post and agreed with your points made. I also found it interesting that transactional leadership is much more structured and works in environments of structure such as sports teams and military settings. Meaning that creativity and imagination would not be beneficial in this setting.
I agree transactional leaders must have some sort of charisma in order to strike a deal or exchange in the first place especially when sometimes, the transaction benefits the leader more than the people
Of course, these leaders must have some sort of charisma, but I think that if a leader is genuinely transformative, they should not need that must charisma. If people recognize that the leader is trying to benefit them and the rest of society, they will follow easier.