Leadership
 

Transactional or transformational?

Good boy, here's your bone.

Good boy, let's go expand your knowledge of pet stores and brand name pet food.

I think it depends on whether you like the people who follow you to just do what they're told, or to know why they're being asked to do what they're doing and if you have any faith in being able to delegate responsibilities.

The second is a better way to go if you ask me, but it doesn't always work because some people don't want to know. They just want to be told what to do.

No way am I encouraging Pilau to expand his knowledge of pet stores and brand name pet food...

I think it's more complex than that Ali. People often want to be 'told what to do' in circumstances which are outside their comfort zone. Those same people may well be more confident in different situations and then they may require more in the way of reasons and motivation.

Each is valid and appropriate concerning the perceived situation.

Transactional leadership tend to focus on goals, finding problems and solving them, interpreting principals and making corresponding decisions and getting down to business. These methods can and are very efficient given the setting.

Transformational leadership can be and is entirely different. Instead of working, say, for a reward or to miss a consequence, the collectiveness of the group takes importance. Accordingly, transformation of the individual's ideals and functioning for the group's common interest and objective. Underlying compenents include but are not limited to the charisma of the leader towards followers, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation.

In layman's terms, one is about achieving and doing. The other is about expanding and growing.

Hi guys...watcha doin? Can I come? Where ya going huh?

;)

I think I would fall under the transactional definition there. I don't want to stand around and complain that a problem is happening...like 90 percent of the people I run into. Chances are it is getting fixed by me or someone like me whilst others are still complaining. They complain about it even after it's fixed...they see this as a great contribution.

How you gonna keep him down on the farm after he sees Paree?

I'm an American... what's a leader?

George Bush is a prime example of an autocratic leader, dontcha know. He has his ups and downs...

Of course this is true. It's also true that some people may change from one to another during the course of their lives or according to their level of experience.

In my experience, I'd say that when people have more knowledge they're more likely to be interested in finding and solving problems as well as improving the outcomes for the group as well as themselves. People with less knowledge need more direct guidance and are more likely to take on board simple tasks which may contribute to the overall wellbeing of the group, but are unable identify innovations which could improve their output.

With this in mind, I believe leaders need to be able to wear both caps equally, particularly during training stages for new staff as an example.

Consolidate then delegate. ;)

Transformational.

I think I would fall under the transactional definition there. I don't want to stand around and complain that a problem is happening...like 90 percent of the people I run into. Chances are it is getting fixed by me or someone like me whilst others are still complaining. They complain about it even after it's fixed...they see this as a great contribution.


I can DIG IT !!! Folks bitching !! not getting ANY thing accomplished !!
Quit ya Bitch'n and SOLVE the problem !!!!

I used to work for a large factory operation, which was starting a new factory that had been relocated from the city to the country (cheaper labour).

We had to complete four aptitude tests, the first intake of employees were the top 3% of the 400 applicants and scored in the top 5% for that company worldwide.

The first intake were given 6 weeks training, regarding business practices, career advancement, and then some fluffy courses like "Dealing with conflict", "Train the Trainer", and A LOT of time spent on working as a team plus team development.

This company wanted to do away with Supervisor type roles and have teams, with four key roles that were filled by team elected peers.

By the 5th intake they were filling roles in the packing area and wash down crew, they were employing from the lower quarter of aptitude scores.

The people in the first intake, went on to be management that were promoted from the floor....something this company never thought it would do, because none of them really had the required tertiary education.

The people in the 5th intake, love their jobs, love the social aspect of it and when asked if they want further training on machines or positions (which equates to more $$s), they have declined again and again.

So, with all my waffle, I think I am saying you sometimes need both types in a working environment.

Ahaha, digging works. I just wanted to rant tonite and say unassertive people cannot be good leaders. I'm in this one dance scene at school, and the actual show is in 2 days, and tonite we had practice from 10pm-2am because our scene is so far behind in the show. The coordinators don't assert themselves to get things done, they are too nice about picking dancers for each dancers, gosh I just want to frickin' complain about how the coordinators for this scene suck and shouldn't be coordinating. I mean they don't make cuts to people who don't even show up to practice, they openly discuss "who wants to do this?" way too late, the show is in two damn days. GODDAMNIT makes me so pissed off at how crappy our scene will look because no one has assertiveness to get shit together.

If you aren't assertive, you can't be a good leader, bottom line.
Rant, done.

What if someone is assertive, but has no clue how to do something? Isn't it worse to strongly lead in the wrong direction than to lead weakly in the correct direction?