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\u2019s original definition of transforming leadership, Bass\u2019s model does not include the aspect of social change, exclusively focusing on executive leadership.<\/p>\n
A particularly interesting point for me was when Couto talked about how \u201cBurn\u2019s transforming leadership is attractive, [but] it may be unattainable and distract us from the important task of being as effective as one can be \u2026 with little hope of epoch change\u201d (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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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…<\/p>\n