Respond to this post

What is the difference between transactional and transformational leadership?

James MacGregor Burns came up with the transformational approach to leadership. Transactional leadership is actually a traditional type of leadership. He had compared this leadership with a $$more complex and potent$$ type of leadership which was then called transformational leadership $($Johnson & Hackman, $2018).$ According to the text, leaders are either transactional or transformational. From my understanding, transactional leadership is more of rewarding and$/$or giving privileges to satisfy followers for $$desirable outcomes$.$ It is more of a leader$-$follower role. Whereas transformational leadership does that as well, but does even more. The goal of transformational leadership is to help the follower transform into a leader.

How could this be put in terms of other concepts we have studied?

I feel that this could be put in terms of other concepts we have studied because of the other approaches we have learned about. I believe that we could compare Burns$$ approach to other approaches that we read about in Chapter Three. For example, the relational approach is about the relationship between the leader and the follower. For the transactional and transformational leadership approach, I would say that the leader$-$follower relationship is important.

Suppose I cynically said, "Leadership is just a gussied$-$up turbo$-$charged traits approach." How would you respond to this?

Honestly, my first response would be $$What does that even mean?$.$ I had to search up what $$gussies$-$up$$ meant. It is apparently slang for making someone look more impressive. Anyway, now that I know what that means here is what my response would be:

Leadership is important, and to be a successful leader you need certain traits. If you ever want to be a leader, you have to learn those traits. Also, you need more than just traits, you need skills!

What exactly is charisma? Is it a real thing or just a word we use for something we don't understand?

According to the text, we only use the label $$charismatic$$ for $$well$-$known political, social, and business leaders who have had a significant impact on the lives of others$($Johnson & Hackman, $2018).$ Honestly, that is not how I use the word charisma, but with how the text is describing it$,$ I would say that it could be a real thing and that it is used well.