Month: October 2019

Burns claims that leadership “unlike power-wielding, is thus inseparable from followers’ needs and goals.” I thought that this was interesting given that one of the characteristics of a charismatic leader is that they are understanding of and responsive to the needs of their followers. We tend to think of charismatic leaders as different or extraordinary, but Burns defines responsiveness to followers as a skill that all leaders should have. He then explains the difference between transactional and transformational leadership, which is that transactional leadership “occurs when one person takes the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things,” while transformational leadership is when “one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality.”

According to Bass, society in the last few decades has created a need for more transformational leadership rather than transactional, which I thought was really interesting. I learned about the differences between transactional and transformational leadership in my Leadership 102 class last semester, but I had never thought about this before. Bass argues that after the Cold War, skilled professional jobs became more common, and these educated professionals began to see each other as equals rather than in a supervisor-subordinate relationship. As a result, managers had to find a way to foster autonomy and challenging work in order to provide job satisfaction for their employees. Bass explains a similar trend in the parent-child relationship. In previous generations, parents taught their kids to respect authority without question, while parents today teach their kids about taking responsibility and advocating for themselves. Thinking about the way I was raised vs. the way that my grandparents were raised, I think that this is definitely true.

1 Comment

Transformational leadership is defined by James Burns as occurring when “one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (Burns, 1978, p. 101). This type of leadership requires a mutual bond between the leader and the follower. Unlike transactional leadership, the benefits to the relationship must be mutual. I find it really interesting that research into transformational leadership tends to find that women are more effective in transformational leadership than men (Bass, 1999, p. 17). However, Bass then went on to point out that women might not necessarily be better transformational leaders naturally, but that by societal standards they are forced “to be that much better” in comparison to male leaders “to attain the same positions” as them (Bass, 1999, p. 17).

These observations remind me of the different expectations of leaders based on genders and races in our society that we have discussed in class. A white woman that is assertive and hard-working will more likely be called bossy and a workaholic, whereas a white man that is assertive and hard-working is simply admired. Women have to work harder to overcome the negative evaluations of their work than men do. In that process, I think it is incredibly plausible that women would also appear to be better transformational leaders because of the effort they must put into their work to surpass societal barriers. In order to break down sexist boundaries, a woman has to put in more effort and thus ultimately making her a stronger leader in the exact same position as a man.

1 Comment

Ethan Ng

Transactional leadership and Transformative leadership are the two categories under which relationships between leaders and followers are defined. After reading the texts I learned that Transformative leaders move beyond their immediate interests and elevate the group, this reminded me of citizen leaders who come from within in order to elevate a group and the Transactional leadership is more of a deal. The followers will give something in order to get something out of a leader, Its the idea of an exchange of services which empower both groups and their needs.

I believe that transformative leadership is something that is more effective in these groups because it inspires other leaders within the group which can create a strong lien of leaders behind a cause which ultimately will make them more powerful as a group.

2 Comments

What stood out to me most about the Burns reading was the contrast between transactional leadership and transformational leadership.  I found this sentence especially meaningful: “Leadership, unlike naked power-wielding, is thus inseparable from followers’ needs and goals.” Both transactional and transformational leadership require this inseparability of leaders and followers, but in different ways. I was intrigued by the comparison; transformational leadership is clearly a more effective method of leadership.

Transactional leadership involves an exchange of things such as goods, it is not just simply to engage with others in order to boost morale and motivate, which is what a leader should be doing. Transactional leaders can easily have ulterior motives and be more interested in what they get out of the leadership as opposed to transformational leaders who only get higher levels of motivation and morality of their followers out of leadership. Clearly, if one of these two types of leaders were to be less sincere and less genuinely follow-oriented, it would be a transactional leader.

This being said, I think that this comparison is an effective method of comparing and contrasting various leader’s motivations and therefore their dedications and effectivenesses. Leadership is a very subjective field, but I think differentiating between transactional and transformational leaders is one manner of determining a leader’s effectiveness.

Leave a Comment

Transforming Leadership seems to be a very effective leadership style. In Burns’s article, he suggests that leaders and followers raise each other to higher levels of motivation and morality. I feel this to be an effective leadership style because having the leaders and followers rasing each other higher and higher can improve any environment. An example Burns gave was Gandhi and he was an effective leader while using this method.

The other form of leadership in Burns’s article was called transactional leadership. This style is when one person takes initiative in making contact with others in exchange for other valued things. Burns says it is mainly political or economic. I feel as though this is the main one used today because it is shown to be used in a political background.

1 Comment

Burns definition of leadership is that it is “leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and motivations of both leaders and followers.” While no definition will be perfect, I think that this is one of the best definitions of leadership we have gotten yet because it mentions that the motivation should be for the leader and the follower. I do not believe that the leader should be leading only for his personal goals, but he should also not only be leading for other people. As Burns states, leadership should have a result that help both the leaders and the followers.

Bass’s article about transformational and transactional leadership is interesting because it is clear that there can not be one without the other. I think that people are looking to choose one as a leadership technique instead of using the best parts of each one. If there was a scenario where one had to be chosen, transformational leadership would be better. This is because transformational leaders, for example a president, will articulate to their followers what they can do for their country. This is a beneficial tactic because it is important for the people to understand the cause. Transactional leadership is the weaker option because they cater to the immediate self-interests of their followers, which may not be for their best interest.

1 Comment

I found the comparison between transactional and transforming leaderhip particularly interesting. Transactional leadership I found is what I typically think of when I think of a leader; the typical relationship between a politician and their constituents. This relationship has a sort of mutualism aspect to it, where both parties rely on the relationship for success. However, what particularly caught my eye about this form of leadership was that it is not binding, and so my mind immediately went to thinking of all the unkept campaign promises of presidents throughout history.

Transforming leadership became very obvious to me to be the better and more useful form of leadership. The idea that both parties, the leader and the followers, constantly raise one another to a higher standard appears to be much more beneficial, particularly to the leader. A leader who proves that he can learn from his followers presents an element of humility which I believe to be invaluable. I like the way that Burns refers to this type of leadership as “dynamic”. People who build dynamic relationships with others have a much better chance of changing someones life, and if a leader can inspire one to change, she can certainly maintain their following, and even inspire them to become leaders themselevs and start their own followings. Transforming leadership has the ability to change the world because it inspires.

1 Comment

I found the section in the Bass article about leader-member exchange (LMX) to be interesting. Bass says that LMX can be perceived as both transactional and transformational leadership. It takes place in stages through which trust, loyalty and respect between the leader and follower can develop. At the start LMX is transactional, but by the end it is transformational. This idea made sense to me. It seems hard to jump right into a transformational leadership relationship without developing some trust between followers and leaders. If followers are reliable in doing what is asked of them by the leader, then eventually they can develop the relationship where there can be more give and take between the leader and follower. This seemed like a good halfway point between transactional and transformational leadership.

I was also interested by the sections of the Bass article that discussed women. Women are typically seen as more transformational leaders, rather than transactional. Being more transformational leaders means that women are likely more effective leaders. This is interesting because are implicit bias often tells us that women would not be as strong of leaders. In reality, however, they might be better equipped then men to be leaders because they trend towards transformation leadership. I assume that women that are often disliked in the workplace are those that practice more transactional leadership because they might not have the typical “feminine” qualities that supposedly make women better transformational leaders.

1 Comment

Transactional and Transforming Leadership 

Susan Nevin 

In the article, “Transactional and Transforming Leadership,” by James MacGregor Burns, he discusses what the definition of leadership is. Burns claims that leadership is “leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent…both leaders and followers.” I would agree with Burns in that being a leader is not only having this power over your audience, but rather the motivation to get them to make a stand for a certain topic. The strongest movements usually have an inspiring leader or figurehead that brought them together is some way. Burns then discussed two types of leadership, transformational leadership and transactional leadership. He explained that transformational leadership raises the motivation of his audience, while transactional leadership is more doing something for the exchange of valued things. I would agree that these are accurate, but I would argue that transformational leadership has a bigger and longer lasting impact on society. 

In the next article, Bass mentions Burn’s work on the topic, but claims that our current society calls for more transformational leaders, as we live in a time where we leaders need to empower their followers. This is because transformation leaders inspire motivation and confidence, and don’t just have one end goal in mind, but are looking for improvement as a whole. Altogether, transformational leadership is the most important kind, as change is the first and most necessary thing needed.

1 Comment

We visited an exhibit called Determination focusing on the 400 years of racially-motivated hate and discrimination that has run our country. It was really interesting to see the culmination of segregation and inequality in all different aspects of life, from education to housing to fame. The title comes from a speech given by MLK about the determination African Americans have portrayed in this centuries-long fight for equality and justice. I really liked the title and exhibit because it not only encouraged the mission for equality but also gave credit to a multitude of factors and people – the exhibit focused on thirty individuals who are remembered for their contributions to the fight for equality, such as MLK and Nat Turner, demonstrating all of the various parts played.

I liked how the exhibit was set up, starting with protests from slaves up until present-day fights for equality. It showed how each protest or riot built upon previous ones and the accumulation of ideas, all of which advocated for similar things but the wording or the ideology improved each time. It also detailed how way that protests occurred, violent or nonviolent, and how each ended (mainly the nonviolent worked better than violent).

One thing that stood out to me was the Rosa Parks, Colvin bus riot incident (not ideal word choice but I couldn’t think of another word). I had to tell some of my classmates about how it was not Parks who did the act of civil disobedience and why there was a change. They were dumbfounded, and it made me realize even more how the Great Man Theory has effected our view of history, whitening it and making it male-orientated.

However, I didn’t like the end because it was a board of who inspires visitors, and many people didn’t take it seriously, taking away from the necessary intense-ness of the exhibit. The intensity and focus of the exhibit really honed in on how necessary it is for equality to come about, and the board seemed to be a distractor instead of a contributor.

Leave a Comment

The difference between transactional and transforming leadership is in my opinion what differentiates political leaders and social leaders. As defined in the readings, transactional leadership is more of a trade-off between the leader and the followers which can be through votes. This is important because this means that the leader, like the followers, want something from each other and some deception is bound to happen. A candidate, for example, could without their true goals during candidacy and promote more promises than they will complete in order to get the votes they need. 

On the other hand, transcending leadership is more of collaborative work. It is one in which people work together to reach a goal that pushes both groups forward. That is why I believe this type of leadership is seen in social leaders like MLK. He formed a relationship with his followers to fight for equality. That relationship was key to the success of the goal. Keeping this in mind, do you think it is possible for a president to be a transcending leader while stilling having the trade-off of votes?

1 Comment

After reading Greenleaf’s article, I believe that a servant as a leader will be a better leader in comparison to someone who inherited the leadership position. Servant leaders will be more likely to feel comfortable in a leadership role due to their natural ability instead of someone who has been put in that position and expected to lead a certain way.

I see this relate to our class discussion regarding humility and how it is vital to have that as a trait in leadership. I think that servants who rise as leaders naturally and unexpectedly are humble. In other words, these servant leaders aren’t forcing their ideas on anyone to achieve a certain role, but rather sharing ideas organically because it’s a part of their nature.

5 Comments

In the reading the first thing that Robert Greenleaf says is that can a leader and a servant be fused into one role and to answer that question I believe that yes you can merge the two roles into a an effective leader. There were many leaders who have started off from beginnings less fortunate than others. Relating to the reading we had a couple classes ago with Machiavelli in one of the readings said that a leader who gets the leadership position by inheritance is not as an effective leader compared to the leader who gets to that position by his own merit.

When Greenleaf talks about the reading Journey to the East, he talks about a servant named Leo who is out on a journey and he eventually gets lost and is nowhere to be found. One of the explorers comes across him years later and he is said to be a leader of some sort. This story made me think about how if one can person can come out of nowhere especially being a servant and lead people than your beginnings really have no significant effect on who you can be. Being a servant, you have the same experiences and troubles from the same people that you can lead. You have been right there with them through the tough times and that can shape you to be the right leader for the right people.

2 Comments

Most of, if not all of my leadership experience has been through athletics, and servant leadership is something that is emphasized from the start of any athletic career. It manifests itself differently in every sport, but the main idea, to paint with a broad brush, is that no one is too important or too skilled to be put above their teammates. A leader of a team demonstrates this asset off the field more than on it. The captains should be the ones who clean the bus after an away game, or clean up the field after practice. This sends the message that they are putting their teammates before themselves. In turn, this makes them more approachable, especially to younger players, and this builds overall team camaraderie.

 

Greenleaf and Spears talk about servant leadership in a more general setting. Greenleaf references Hermann Hesse’s Journey to the Eastto show what exactly is meant by servant leadership. In this story, Leo does the grunt work for his crew, and when he disappears, the whole mission falls apart. Later, we find out that Leo was actually the leader of this mission. This directly ties to our previous conversations about humility in leaders; humility is the principle that servant leadership revolves around. Followers will not support a leader who puts himself first. Followers want a leader who will genuinely care for them, and servant leadership is the best way for a leader to prove this to their followers.

6 Comments

I strongly agree with the notion that the best leaders start off as a servant or under a leaders wing. It is extremely rare that we see people go straight into a leadership position without learning the roles and renditions of a good leader. The type of servant to lead is more natural and attains the qualities of a great role model. These servant leaders are better leaders in the sense that they are able to relate and connect with their followers due to the simple fact that they were once in the shoes of their followers. To begin with a humble outlook on your position, the role comes much easier. Humility is attained a lot easier and with less effort and is pertained better.

In Hesse’s story, Journey to the East, this fictional story obtains the idea of Leo as a servant joining them. When their “journey” begins to go in a different direction than expected he is there and ready for the fall. This is because of his energy and overall charisma that he brings. He has an energetic stigma attached to him in a positive manner that makes him show signs of potentially being a good leader in the near future.

3 Comments

As I was reading the article with the list of servant leadership traits, I couldn’t help but think about those traits and how they interact with community service. That is what I think of when I hear servant leadership, community service. It teaches you a lot of the characteristics or at least makes you a better person. I’m not saying that if you do community service that you will be a good leader, but I believe that if someone has experiences with people of all different socioeconomic status, race, gender identity, and everything else that can create divisions between people, they will have a better view of the world and how their decisions might impact more than just the people and the community they grew up in. Greenleaf’s article talks about servant leadership and how “It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead”. It is drastically different from the people who choose to lead first. Like I said earlier, I know that I have and I’m assuming other people have learned something when serving others. Volunteering and community service is a big part of my life and I believe that everyone should do it because it gives you a different perspective on life. Personally, it made me more appreciative of what I have but also taught me that you can find joy anywhere. There is no situation that is completely hopeless which just really changed my view of the world and I am grateful for that.

This interacts with leadership because I think that the valuable lessons that my experiences with service have taught me would give me some of the skills I need to prepare myself for leadership. It taught me humility and awareness. I grew up in an affluent area and had never really been faced with anything else until I went on a mission trip to Belize. I was astounded by the joy of the community despite the hardships they experience on a day to day basis and it taught me that other people have different experiences than me and that taught me how to listen. I am excited and willing to listen to others in order to learn more about the world. Sorry, I’m kind of going on a tangent, anyway I think that service can improve the leadership qualities of our leaders and that service leaders have a more well-rounded view of the world that we live in. Therefore they can make better decisions and be a superior leader.

2 Comments

My main takeaway from Greenleaf’s article is that servant-leaders are the most effective. According to Greenleaf, 

“The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served”

I agree with that. I believe that individuals that begin as leaders can often lose sight of the needs of their constituents, as opposed to a servant-first leader whose number one priority is fulfilling the needs of the people. It is not to say, however, that all leaders must start as servants in order to accurately serve their people because that is not that case, but I do believe that there is value in someone serving others in a lower position before arising as a leader. 

Another aspect of servant-leadership that I agree with is when Greenleaf claims that a servant 

“…is always searching, listening, expecting that a better wheel for these times is the making”

This desire for something better is also a valuable trait in a leader, but even more important is their drive and initiative to create this. Greenleaf believes this is something found in a servant-first leaders as they are the ones who are always seeking for new opportunities and possibilities. 

A question I have about this article however, is how do account of the great leaders that serve their followers diligently and did not start off servants? How do we consider their effectiveness?

 

6 Comments

I definitely agree that the best leaders start as a servant or a role that is similar rather than someone who goes straight into a leadership position that has never been under someone else. These type of servant to leader people are more natural in the position. They can relate to their followers and have a better connection with them making their bond stronger because they have humble beginnings. This relates to the idea that humility is an important trait to have as a leader. The servant as a leader has humility without even trying or forcing it.

Even though Hesse’s story Journey to the East is fictional, the idea of Leo joining them as a servant, but when he was no longer there and the journey falls apart is realistic because they needed his presence and energy there all along. When a person brings great energy and positive presence to a group they are not appointed to lead in the first place, shows great potential for that person to eventually become a good leader.

4 Comments