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.
This is a great point and key to the definition of transformational leadership- both parties are raising one another to a higher standard. It has a moral and ethical implication as well since the ways the leader is interacting with the followers goes far beyond the immediate self needs. It is a very powerful form of leadership, but much less common than transactional leadership .