Richard Couto’s article offers an in-depth description of “transforming leadership” as defined by James MacGregor Burns in his 1978 book, Leadership. Couto notes that transforming leaders “engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (Couto 103). The author notes that while his definition of transforming leadership was an important contribution to the field of leadership studies, but Bernard Bass reclaimed the idea to more applicable terms. Couto argues that the idea of transforming leadership may be unattainable because it can “distract us from the important task of being as effective as one can be to transform this set of conditions and causal factors in the here and now with little hope of epoch change” (107). Therefore, Bass’s reclaimed idea of “transformational leadership” as a one-way influence of leaders onto their followers, rather than the interaction of leaders and followers. Bass’s term means a form of leadership where leaders essentially transform their followers through idealized influence, inspiration, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation.
Couto explains that Burns and Bass sought to define this type of leadership in different contexts; for Burns, in social movements, and for Bass, in formal institutions such as schools and industry. This article got me thinking about examples of who Burns would define as a “transforming” leader and who Bass would define as a “transformational” leader. Burns qualifies “Lenin, Mao, Gandhi, and Luther” (106) as transforming leaders. Bass, however, focuses on leaders that may apply in “formal organizations and institutions” (106), such as “school principals, CEO’s, and military officers,” (106). A leader in a school setting, for example, may possess similar traits as leaders such as Gandhi, but it would be a stretch to argue that they can be measured on the same scale. Couto offers an explanation on the differences between transforming and transformational leaders and how scholars should make the distinction when analyzing leaders in all different contexts.
Anna Marston
It was interesting to me how Cuoto compared the differences in ideologies of Burns and Bass by how they used the way transform. While one thinks of it more a process, Burns, and the other thinks of more as a intimate hierarchy, Bass, both support the idea of evolving followers into leaders. I believe that transformational leadership is the best way to develop genuine leaders, but I wonder if they’re consistently effective.
I really liked your point about how the two authors were writing with different contexts in mind! That was definitely confusing to me prior to these readings. I too think that Cuoto’s writing makes it clearer how to interpret leadership types, no matter the context.