Month: October 2019

In Couto’s article, I found it interesting when he explained his opinion that “transformation” was more about modifying leadership and the condition of the leader while “transforming” is the process of leadership. These two words are very similar and yet, they have different meanings that all relate back to this one topic of leadership. The definitions vary a little as well with Bass’s idea of transformational leaders transforming the followers and Burns’s idea of followers transforming leaders based on their interactions. I honestly find all of these different views to be confusing because then I can’t tell if I like transformational leadership or not, especially with the articles from the previous class and those alternating opinions as well.

The second article goes into a very simplified definition of transactional leadership, which is focused on the structure and order of something like a business or other large company/group of people. It drove home the idea that transactional is more about a set idea while transformational is about the opportunity and potential of something. Transactional leadership coming from “rational-legal” leadership was also an interesting idea because it states that it is “the exercise of control on the basis of knowledge” and I think that in this explanation, transactional leadership is portrayed as, in a way, more useful/vital than transformational. Although, the same issue arises with this article as the last in that all of the differing views from the articles last class make it difficult to tell which type of leadership is better or more efficient but I think that also goes to show how these situations that call for leaders are very subjective and are all different.

Couto defines transformational leadership as being “a leader that shapes, alters, and elevates the motives and values and goals of followers” (Couto 103). There is a difference between transformational leadership and charismatic leadership. Couto brings up Burns and I find it very interesting how Burns prefers the term heroic leadership over charismatic leadership. Heroic leadership, according to him, is “the relationship between followers and persons they believe in because of reputation aside from tested capacities, experience or stands on issues” (Couto 103). This type of relationship between leaders and followers lacks the basics of leadership qualities because they do not share the same goals.

Couto also brings up Bass who came up with the idea of transformational leadership, which is different than Burns’ idea of transforming leadership. I found it interesting that Bass conducted a study in schools, the military, etc. and found that transformational leaders were more effective in leading their organization and their followers did not have to put in as much effort. Between Burns and Bass, one of the main differences is that Burns mostly focuses on historical transforming leaders, like MLK and Gandhi, while Bass looked at more general, lower level leaders, like principals and CEO’s. This creates two different scales between follower and leaders and their relationship with one another. The more we learn about leadership, the more tangled all the terms and types of leadership become. Defining leadership is not as easy as it may seem as not every leader fits one certain type of mold and each are unique in their own way.

I found Couto’s piece about transformational leadership to be very intriguing. What I liked most about it was the comparison of the original definition from Burns and the way that transformational leadership has evolved throughout the years by looking at Bass and his work. The main differences of the two perspectives on transformational leadership is that they are being dealt with in different contexts. Burns is dealing with leadership in terms of politics and social movements, where Bass is using executive leaders who become transforming leaders. Bass believes that the “direction of influence is one-way, unlike Burn’s treatment in which followers could transform leaders by the interaction of leaders and followers” (104). This made me think about how subjective transformational leadership is, it depends greatly on the context that you are looking at and what you would consider to be a social change.

I also enjoyed the transactional leadership article and found it very interesting that the best examples of transactional leadership are in settings where there is a specific outcome wanted. I thought that the was very well organized in that there were so many examples of transactional leaders in so many different fields, this really made me understand what exactly a transactional leader does. This article also cleared up the benefits of transactional leadership for me because in class I was thinking that it was very negative. I see that due to its adaptability to so many organizations, its simplicity, and its effectiveness, is why it is such a sought after trait of leaders in the business world.

One thing I kept thinking about while reading this is transactional leadership doesn’t seem like leadership to me. To me it seems much more as interactions between certain people at a certain time. There may be a difference in power but i don’t necessarily see it as a leader follower relationship in the examples Burns gave, except elected officials. However with elected officials some people may give them their vote not because they follow them but because they see them as the best option in a bunch of not great options. They do not fully support them.

I think with transformational leadership is where you start to see a leader follower relationship develop. It takes time for this relationship to develop not just a one time thing. It takes multiple interactions.

The article that focuses on transactional leadership says “Transactional Leadership focuses on results, conforms to the existing structure of an organization and measures success according to that organization’s system of rewards and penalties”. I decided to respond to this article because honestly transformational leadership still kind of confuses me. Transactional leadership is a lot more straightforward in my opinion, though it does still have its nuances. Transactional is basically exactly how it sounds, it is a transaction; I give you X so you give me Y. The article used Bill Gates as an example. Apparently, he was a bit of a jerk but his way of managing got results. He did not stand for dumb answers or ideas and focused on getting results and that is how he built Microsoft.

You can also look at people in the office to see a real-life example of transactional leadership. Today in class we talked about how people that we elect to power are transactional leaders. We give them money and our votes for them to fight for what we want. This is not always a good thing. One of my biggest complaints about congress is that large donors have too much power, the NRA for example. They give candidates lots of money in return for that candidate to fight for more lenient gun laws. Instead of fighting for what the people want, which is stricter gun laws and more background checks, congresswomen and men are choosing to support the current system because they get a lot of money from the NRA. This is a more negative form of transactional leadership just to demonstrate that there is no form of leadership that is perfect.

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.

Last night I attended Derek Thompson’s presentation “Economics and Influence in Digital Spaces.” I found this talk extremely interesting. Thompson started by talking about how companies that don’t charge users for their services, such as Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram, are making a profit every year while companies who do charge for services, such as Uber and Lyft, are losing a lot of money. The reason for this is that these free websites make their money through advertising. Thompson said that advertising has contributed to misinformation being spread on sites like Google and Facebook because they will do anything for our attention.

Thompson also said that this idea goes all the way back to the 1830s, when a 23-year-old named Benjamin Day started a newspaper called the New York Sun, which only cost a penny and made the rest of its money through advertising. The New York Sun published a story about how scientists had seen people living on the moon. While this was obviously false, many readers believed it, including people who were very well educated and knew logically that it couldn’t be true. I thought it was very interesting that he used an example from the 1800s because we think of fake news as a problem that started with the rise of social media. Thompson also talked about how attention-based platforms like YouTube benefit extremists, and how easy it is for us to fall into their trap simply by clicking on videos in our “recommended for you” column.

His last point really resonated with me. He said that social media has caused a lot of anxiety in young people because we can now see how many options are out there for us, which seems like a good thing, but can be very overwhelming. It also gives us the ability to see what other people are doing at all times and compare ourselves. We know rationally that what other people put online is just the version of themselves that they want people to see, but it is still difficult not to compare yourself to what you see on social media.

I found this talk by Derek Thompson very interesting. Thompson brought a very unique perspective to the digital age and the unique relationship technology and the economy have. His main point throughout the talk was that the way that digital apps, that actually make money, work is through advertising and how detrimental that is to the society. The first point that he made was the apps that we use that we pay them to provide us a service such as, Spotify, Uber, Lyft, Doordash, etc. are all losing billions of dollars a year; where the apps who charge you nothing to use them, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, etc. are raking in the money. This is all due to the fact that for the social media platforms that do not charge us any money they are selling our attention to advertisers.

Thompson said that the reason the advertising in these apps are detrimental is because it is in the economy of attention grabbing, saying that people will do whatever to grab your attention so they can then sell it to people who want your information. I thought that the example he used of the newspaper The Sun in the early 1800’s published a story about a scientist seeing ape looking people on the moon. This was a very fitting example because it was the first known example of fake news in the media. I thought that it was very interesting how Thompson explained that the economics of why that worked back then is the exact same reason as to why it works today.

I found his last point to be the most touching to me in the end, he was discussing how due to the fact that today’s youth has so much access to so much around the world- so people have so much to look at and figure out who they want to be. Thompson was saying that there is much more anxiety to be perfect because that is what other people are perceived as online, but in reality, people are more anxious because today it is much more possible to become your true self than in any other time.

After reading both burns’ and bass’ articles, I realized that both transactional and transformational leadership are effective methods of leading in modern-day. They are polar opposites in the sense that transactional leadership uses an incentive for motivation while transformative leadership is more personal, working for the progress of the community as a whole. When I think of transactional leadership I think of a business person who is negotiating for their personal gain. Although the follower would be gaining something in the process of this transaction, I do not think that this is a very effective way of leading.

Transformational leadership, I think most would agree, is a more effective way of leading. As the leader grows, they bring the people up with them. Instead of exchanging goods for mutual gain, transformational leadership focuses on the progress of society as a whole. As a follower, I believe that looking up to a leader that has your personal well being in mind is much more desirable than looking up to someone that benefits you, but for their own personal gain. Obviously, there are scenarios where each leadership tactic is more effective, but it seems to me that in general, people would prefer their leaders to be transformational rather than transactional.

Reading both Bass and Burns’ articles about transactional and transformational leadership styles it is clear that, in the past and today, transactional leadership is less effective and successful than transformational leadership. Building a quick relationship with someone for the sake of gaining one thing in return provides no opportunity to foster growth in that relationship. There is no incentive or need to continue associating oneself with that leader or trying to learn from the leader when the leader has no desire to continue teaching their followers. In comparison, transformational leaders work to benefit both themselves and their followers. Through a process of teaching and working to accomplish their follower’s motives, followers and leaders are able to build a relationship that continuously grows. Burns specifically notes that this type of relationship elevates both groups and provides a greater feeling of accomplishment.

Going deeper into the distinctions between the two Bass describes it as seeing what can you do for a certain group versus what that group can do for you and how you can benefit (Bass 10). Most transactional leaders simply see themselves as a priority and put their needs above those of their followers. Instead of the transformational leaders who combine their needs with their followers, the transactional leader works to separate the two. Bass continues by noting the benefits of transformational leadership–by combing one’s goal with their leaders, the followers are able to move further up Maslow’s chart in order to be closer to self- actualization.

I thought that Bass’s definition of transformational leadership was accurate and made sense. When thinking about Burns’s and Bass’s differing ideologies, I thought about what it realistically takes to transform a follower into a leader. Cuoto dives into the fundamental aspects of the definition when he writes, “Since Bass, transformational leadership is more often used in leadership literature than transforming leadership with the implied change of state of being or character of a leader rather than of a process in which a leader participates.” In my opinion, Bass’s reasoning behind his definition makes more sense because developing leadership skills is a partially determined by the individual’s initiative.  This is because a leader should be developed partially by their own natural abilities.

Yet, I will acknowledge that Burn’s ideology behind transforming leadership is relevant and applicable as well. It is important for the leader to follower relationship to be interactive because it will enhance the growth of the individual.  This is also where I saw the Great Man Theory appear in the differing definitions of transformational leadership from Bass and Burns.  While Bass believes that structure for creating leaders should be influenced by the individual’s own initiative and talent, Burns believes that any individual has the capacity to lead.  In my opinion, the suitable definition of transformational leadership falls somewhere in between these two scholars.  While it is important to develop and teach leadership skills organically, I believe that some people are better suited to lead and hard work should be rewarded.

The fields that are emphasized within the two scholars definitions also determine their differing ideologies. Bass using his ideology more within formal organizations, like businesses, while Burns focuses more on social movements to mold his understanding on how leaders are developed.  The one way relationship between follower and leader may be effective in the military and in certain business, but I don’t believe it should and will apply in every situation.  This is why Burns and Bass should look to combine their ideologies in order to create a more relevant and accurate definition of transformational leadership.

The importance of the leader-follower relationship is captured in the ideas of transformational and transactional leadership. In his chapter, James Burns explains that pure power can be removed from the leader-follower relationship but leadership is not. I saw this as an explanation for the difference between charismatic leaders as opposed to toxic charismatic leaders. In Bass’ piece on transformational leadership, he explains, “charisma was too much associated with dictatorship and pseudo transformational leaders such as Huey Long, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler” (19). From this we can still define these leaders as toxically charismatic but maybe a better definition is one of pure power instead of leadership. Bass goes on to explain that abusive charismatic leaders do not exhibit the same “individualized consideration” as a socially concerned leader with regard to transformational leadership. I think this is a really important point that proves leadership cannot necessarily be defined with dichotomous terms. Leadership is a continuum where leaders can be different variations of charismatic, transformational, transactional, among other traits. That is why leadership is so hard to define. In fact Bass event admits that some of the best leaders are both transactional and transformational. Overall, I think the more we read about leadership and the more qualities we learn about, the more difficult it is to define leadership but the easier it is for us to understand that leadership is truly a study of people and history in their specific context rather than a bunch of definitions and criteria.

Burns explained the impact of a childs upbrining on how they approach authority:” , parents believed that it was most important to teach their children to respect authority, to respect the church, to respect one’s government, and to avoid questioning authority. Today parents believe it is most important to teach their children to accept responsibility for their own actions, to be willing and confident in accepting challenges, and to question authority when necessary.” I thought this was really interesting; how one is raised effects the way they act in leadership-follower relationships in their future.

This is also interesting how this has evolved over time due to international events. The effect of what is needed from a worker/ the average worker revolves around what is needed by that nation as a whole. As discussed by Burns, after the cold war the main type of worker needed was someone that is more specialized, more educated and trained. I feel like this shows the important role the follower plays in the type of leader.

Transactional and Transformational leadership are two of the forefront ways of leading. Transactional leadership is relevant very much every four years. The elections are prime examples of Transactional leadership. The candidate is promising things that he/she will do in hopes of a vote in return. Many times politicians are scrutinized for making these promises and not following through with them. In our democracy it’s all about just getting into office it seems like.

Transformational leadership is one that I am more familiar with. Becoming a captain on a sports team is a great example. The captain leads the team, however they will be held accountable by the rest of the team. When the captain grows, the team grows. The concept of accountability is then created within the team.

Bernard E. Bass discusses the benefits and superiority of transformational leadership in his research article “Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership”. I didn’t doubt anything Bass was saying, it all sounded logical and likely to me. However, I found that the way he constantly brought up potential holes in mentioned studies, or lack of research in certain areas, made me want to doubt the accuracy. I was confused because a lot of what he said, we have pretty much confirmed in this class or my LDST 102 class. Then I looked at the date of publishing, 1999, and things made much more sense after that. It’s truly amazing how far the study of leadership has come in the last two decades. Transformational leadership has become even more of a staple in leadership studies and in workplaces (as we have read before). Bass also hinted at Trait Theory in his post-paper-proposal for further research. It’s really interesting how much leadership study has to combat with things like McNamora’s Fallacy. To us, it just makes sense that some people would be better at being transformational leaders than others. But all that has to be proven for it to bear any weight. And it is almost impossible to isolate a leader-follower relationship study. There will always be external factors, as Bass has shown.

Anyway, onto my thoughts about the TOPIC of this (Bass’s) article. With transformational leadership, responsibility is shifted downward Instead of a singular leader controlling everything and doling out the responsibilities. When everyone is actively working toward the same goal because their personal interests align with that goal, there is less focus on subordinate-superior relationships and everyone can, ideally, feel like equal contributors intellectually. That feeling, I can imagine, is very important in the workplace (especially when one is working at a desk all day. Stagnant minds can really kill overall creativity and workflow). I did have one question about what was said about Maslow’s Hierarchy: If you’re aligning your personal interests with that of the group’s, how is that surpassing “self-actualization”? To be successful under a transformational leader, I don’t think you need to reach “idealization.” Maybe only the leader does, if at all.

The two articles dissect as well as discuss the differences and similarities in Transactional as well as transformational leadership. Transactional leadership occurs when someone takes the first step into contacting others with the intent to exchanged items of value. It is mainly used for personal benefit and after the exchange is over they have no other reason to continue the relationship. Whereas with the transformational leadership style people or just one person interact with one another in a way in which both the leader and the follower motivate one another to reach higher levels of morality. Essentially the main differences are in Transformational the leader inspires, intellectually stimulates, and is considerate of them. Whereas transactional is in it for the end goal of a personal gain. 

An excellent example of a transitional leader is Mahatma Gandhi. He changed as well as transformed an entire nation as well as it’s people. He did so by learning how to empathize with the nation and appealing to their values as well as feelings. He was able to get his people to accomplish their goal of gaining independence from British rule. An example of a transactional leader is Bill Gates. In order to get Microsoft as a multi-billion-dollar company, he had to align himself with many others to perform transactions in order to promote himself as well as the company. 

I really thought it was interesting how Burns stated that leadership should include the leaders encouraging their followers to act towards a common goal. I think this is a very important aspect to leadership because in order for followers to have respect for or listen to a leader, that leader needs to have control over the group and fight for their needs and values. This is also why I think transforming leadership is a much more effective way to lead compared to transactional because Burns mentions how transactional doesn’t bind the leader and follower in the same way that transforming does; in order to have a mission met or a common goal achieved, there needs to be a sense of community or fellowship among the leader and followers.

Although I believe transformational is ideal, I think that leaders need to use transactional leadership as well in order to receive resources to accomplish goals and it’s hard to be a transformational leader, due to the training, education, and development required to become transformational that Bass details. I also thought it was intriguing that he said that the hardest part to teach was the willingness to be transformational rather than the ability, which makes sense because it seems difficult/strenuous to be a transformational leader.

On another note, I thought it was pretty cool that it stated that women are usually more transformational leaders than men. I believe like this is right because women tend to be more aware of others’ feelings when making decisions, while men tend to be more decisive and therefore more able to just exchange or do the deal, not saying that men can’t be transformational though.