Category: Uncategorized

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.

1 Comment

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. 

2 Comments

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.

Leave a Comment

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