Justification and critisism of Transformational Leadership

Justification and critisism of Transformational Leadership Leadership can be described as an important quality of a person, a vital attribute for an organisation or a key source for an effective team towards attaining success. In these ways, leadership occupies its space in different fields and proves to be important in several aspects. The role of a leader is very important in a management field in terms of taking the organisation towards success or failure, as Drucker (1985) defines Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. According to Cox (2001), the leadership has been classified into two types: Transformational and Transactional. This differentiation was initially made by Downtown (1973, as cited in Barnett, McCormick and Conners, 2001). Transformational leader to be briefly explained is the one who possess a good vision and commitment towards success and motivates his followers and encourage them to increase their work potential. Whereas a transactional leader works in a task oriented manner and behave rigid with no place for personal emotions. In this modern world, business culture changes more rapidly prior to time and it is mandatory that skill and custom of the leadership has to adapt these changes. Heiftz and Laurie (1997) claim that: Instead of maintaining standard, leaders have to challenge the style of doing business and facilitate others in order to distinguish immutable values from historical practices that must go. In this essay, certain counter arguments for transformational leadership are critically analysed and a position has been adopted that transformational leadership is better in the current business atmosphere. The reasons are articulated with characteristic feature of transformational leadership. This is further justified with the explanation of some successful facts about notable transformational leaders and their success in their business. Criticisms of Transformational leadership: Transformational leadership being one of the best leadership models has some criticisms regarding several factors like personality, complication, clarity and other factors. Johnson and Kepner (2002) explain the key criticism within transformational leadership is that, it possesses high probability for the abuse of power. This is concerned with morality of leadership, as in terms of emotional perspective a transformational leader influence his follower. If the direction or the path tends to be in wrong track, then it would result in bad consequences. Further Bass (1997) notifies that, transformational leadership lacks the quality of ensuring and balancing the respective interests and influences that might facilitate to avoid dictatorship and minority suppression. Some notable examples of this model are Adolf Hitler, Osama bin laden and Rev Jim Jones who was the main role in massive Jonestown suicide. These are the people considered to be the negative side of transformational leadershi p. The second critic is that, transformational leadership is more often concentrated in developing an individual personality trait rather than a conduct through which people may be instructed (Bryman, 1992). This result in a difficult situation to train people in this approach, as most of the people will find complicated to adopt this quality. Since transformational leadership is a combination of several leadership models, it is more complicated to understand the concept and teach. In a transformational leadership, the leader is considered as a visionary idol and the leader involve in the business process along with his followers. This creates a dilemma in viewing the leadership in a trait perspective. The third critic provided by Avolio (1999) is that, the transformational leadership is discriminatory and autocratic. This further brings to another critic, the lack of conceptual clarity. The transformational leadership covers a wide range of activities like motivation, inspiration, buil ding trust and furthermore, this creates confusion in terms of concept when compared to other leadership model, as Bryman (1992) pointed out that transformational and charismatic leadership are often considered to be identical with respect to their qualities. The fourth argument is about dimensions of transformational leadership as not clearly mentioned. A scientific research by Tracey and Hinkin (1998) has shown considerable intersections among the dimensions of transformational leadership; it notifies that the dimensions are not clearly defined and complicated to measure. The final critic deals with regards to ethics, describing that transformational leadership suppresses the minorities of an organisation. Keeley (2001) believes that the only way to prevent harm done to the followers by the managers is to avoid the managers from uniting towards a common interest or goal. This ethical statement put forwards an action which is contradictory of what transformational leaders are suppo sed to do. These are some of the critical arguments by various researchers in the business field. The upcoming statements provide a justification for transformational leadership and some counter arguments for the above given critical statements. Justification for transformational leadership: Reviewing the critics arguments, a question arises whether the transformational leadership could be followed by an organisation to run efficiently. A position has been adopted for transformational leadership in this essay and the facts are described and clearly articulated. The first point of criticism review the morality and misleading of power by transformational leadership. Bass (2006) explains the classification in transformational leadership as socialised and personalized characteristics in the book Transformational leadership. The leaders using their abilities to inspire and lead their followers to a wrong path are termed to be pseudo transformational leaders. They possess similar elements as that of transformational leaders, but the motive would be personal and exploitative. It depends upon the individual characteristics in determining or choosing their motive and path, the concept of transformational leadership cannot be blamed. People regarding pseudo transformational model were discussed in the previous section; some examples of leaders who led a constructive path of transformational leadership are Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela etc. Transformational leadership concentrates in developing individual personality trait and it is difficult to understand and teach the concept was another critic. The significant feature of transformational leadership is that, it concentrates the development of follower and tries to enrich their personality. It encourages and involves inspiring followers to commit to a shared vision and goal of the organisation. A transformational leader encourages others to become leaders; as a result the entire organisation will be filled with people possessing effective leadership qualities, Kelly (2003). Furthermore, transformational leader motivates his followers to be innovative in problem solving and develop followers leadership qualities by coaching, mentoring and providing both challenge and support. According to (Leithwood, as cited in Cashin et al, 2000, p.1) Transformational leadership is that which: helps to redefine an individual mission and vision, thereby renewing their commitment and re structure the system for accomplishing the goal. This result in a mutual co-ordination within a leader and follower, where the follower grooms his qualities of leadership and the leader transform himself as a moral agent. Hence transformational leadership must be grounded in moral foundations. Regarding the issue about conceptual clarity, transformational leadership has much in similar characteristic features as that of charismatic leadership. The charisma is a part of transformational leader, it is considered to be a factor which correlates with idealized influence (one of transformational leadership 4Is). It is generally classified as socialized and personalized categories. For an organisation to perform better, Howell and Avolio (1993), authentic charismatic or transformational leaders must be socialised leaders. Under transformational leadership, there are four vital organisational activities performed. Making a compelling case for change in order to heighten followers sensitivity towards organisational change, inspire shared vision in order to attain new and better future, leading new changes and embedding the same. Certain critics notice transformational leadership as discriminatory and autocratic and a questionnaire whether it is directive or participative. Weber (1 947) emphasized that during the period of crises transformational leader directed dependent followers with essential solutions towards the problem; high inspirational leaders were extremely directive in terms of their process and approach. This clearly illustrates that, depending upon the situation a leader has to be either directive or participative in order to perform the task efficiently. The issues concerned to dimensions of transformational leadership, the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) by Bass and Avolio (2000) provides a solution for this critic. The MLQ is used in measurement or determination of the dimensions for this leadership, which are Idealised influence, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation. The ethical issue about the transformational leadership is about suppressing minorities. Being researched for over 25 years, in transformational leadership the objective is to convert individual attention towards larger cause. It results in transformation from selfishness to cooperative concern. The significant feature of this leadership model is that, it focuses on common goal (Ethics, 133). An effective team work is concentrated where majorities and minorities are in the same platform to attain an objective. Successful Transformational leaders: Transformational leadership model proves to be efficient not only in business, but in all other sectors where it is implemented. In order to strengthen the position of transformational leadership, so examples from the past and present are portrayed in this essay. In a historical perspective, Yates (2002) describes about Genghis khan. During the late 12th and 13th century, this man struggled for the unification of the Mongol tribes, which was one of the largest land empires. The mode of leadership used was transformational at that period of time. In terms of business field, Lou Gerstner- the former chairman and CEO of IBM is one of the best examples for transformational leadership. One of the notable events at IBM under Gerstner leadership is: recovery from the companys loss of $1.8 billion in 1993 and making IBM as one of the largest private corporation in IT sector during that period of time. Sheppard (2002) describes that, Gerstner completely rectified the organisational culture an d took IBM to certain heights. Regarding the field of government and military contexts, General Colin Powell overcame the notorious racism in United States military and amidst low expectations became the United States chiefs of staff in 1989. He is the first Afro-American to become the U.S Secretary of State in 1991. Chekwa (2001) notifies that with the vision and qualities of transformational leader, Powell attained this position. Conclusion: The image and the research concerned to transformational leadership might be relatively recent, but demonstration and research of its characteristics and features has been done years back. It is proved that  transformational leaders have great capability to increase the performance beyond expectations and thereby able to make massive changes among individuals and organizations. In this essay, analysing most of the critics statement it has been justified that transformational leadership is stated to be better in a business perspective. When compared with other leadership styles like transactional or autocratic, transformational leadership addresses an individual needs, while the transactional leadership addresses the organisational process and the functioning is more often considered to be monopoly in nature. The decisions made are concerned only with the leader, success and failure occurs in an equal probability. While transformational leadership indulges effective team work, the leader motivates his follower and provides constructive feedback. The significant feature is that, feedback is expected from the follower too thus creating a two way communication. In the current world, transformational leadership is highly recognised and practised by executives in modern organisation. The current business scenario is influenced by insecurity, global commotion and organisational volatility, for which transformational leadership would be a better solution to deal these factors efficiently.

Act Four of the Crucible Essay

How does Miller present John Proctor as a heroic figure in Act Four of ‘The Crucible’? Does the play have any relevance for us watching it today?  A hero is ‘a person who is admired for having done something very brave or having achieved something great’ according to www.dictionary.co.uk. I also think a hero is a person who doesn’t necessarily have to be of a ‘pure’ soul, who has never done anything wrong. For example, in ‘The Crucible,’ a person like Rebecca Nurse who never did anything wrong wasn’t portrayed as a hero to us. We see John Proctor’s actions as more heroic and they are similar to Linford Christie’s actions (where he was accused for taking drugs and now acts as a senior mentor for athletes) which a modern audience watching it today would see as a comparable, if a less serious, situation. Miller presents Proctor as a heroic figure in Act Four of ‘The Crucible’ by John Proctor’s actions. These include John refusing to sign the document, which would save his life. However, at the same time it would mean he would lie and Proctor would rather die than sign a document, which condemned him to working with the devil. I feel this shows John as a hero because he has not only done something very brave by giving his life, which people will admire, but because he has struggled through and done the right thing which will ultimately lead to an end in the accusations of witchcraft in Salem. This part of the play deserves a lot of attention as it shows the greatest act of heroism in the play by Proctor. It also reflects the most relevance for an audience watching today, who would relate John’s example to their own lives. In the earlier acts of the play Miller shows John Proctor resisting temptation from Abigail. The reader sees this as heroic because we know that John has already had an affair and he doesn’t want to cheat again. The reader also knows that it is hard for John Proctor and when he does resist Abagail the reader sees this as a heroic action. The way other characters respond to John Proctor also shows us that John is a hero. Miller shows other characters, for example Mary Warren, respecting him. The first time Miller introduces John into the play we see how other characters respect his authority. ‘MARY WARREN leaps in fright.’ Mary was doing wrong and Proctor discovered her. The fact that we see her leaping in fright shows how she respects John’s authority. She admires him enough to feel ashamed of her wrong doing and a hero is someone who is admired by other people. In Act 4 Proctor knows he has made mistakes in the past and doesn’t think that people will see him as a hero if he is hung. ‘I cannot mount the gibbet like a saint. It is a fraud.’ By John saying this it shows he is not arrogant. The audience see arrogance as an unheroic action. John Proctor says he refuses to testify because he detests authority. ‘It is hard to give a lie to dogs.’ Miller makes John refer to authority figures as dogs because they are hanging people for incorrect and false acusations. Proctor refuses to lie because he wants to stand up to a corrupt justice system. The audience sees this as a heroic action because he is prepared to sacrifice himself in order to abolish the justice system in the future. For John to give his life it is the biggest act of bravery a man can do and we see this bravery as a noble action. In this final act Miller suggests to us that John is performing actions with other people in mind rather than himself. If he confesses he wants to know if other people will be able to forgive him for lying. ‘What would you have me do?’ Proctor is thinking about confessing and he does not want Elizabeth, or any other person, to think badly about him for lying. This is because he is feeling guilty. This guilt shows human emotions and the audience sees this as something they can relate to in their everyday life, because John is a person like us. However, John leads by example and, although he is human, he is a role model who always tries to do the right thing even if it is difficult and may have consequences for him. An earlier example of this is John attempting to save Elizabeth in court by confessing his act of adultery. ‘I have known her, sir.’ This is what makes him heroic for the audience as he tries to do the right thing, for other people not just him, when it is sometimes difficult because of the resulting consequences. Another way in which we see John as heroic is because he physically tears up the confession slip. ‘PROCTOR tears the paper and crumples it.’ This action by Proctor is heroic because he is trying to correct his mistakes. Proctor isn’t perfect but he tries to make up for what he has done wrong in the past. Proctor doesn’t want to return to his old ways of doing wrong as he felt contrite and ashamed of his affair with Abigail. The audience admires his attempt to correct his wrong doing and in doing so Miller gains the audience’s respect for Proctor. Our admiration for Proctor makes us relate John to being a hero because by definition a hero is admired by other people because of their actions.

Nutrition †Obesity Essay

A large controversy in the field of health and food today is the effects that fast food and industrialized food have on our wellness. The convenience of obtaining food has become the main objective in society, but is it taking a toll on our health? Fast food restaurants such as (but not limited to) McDonald’s and Burger King are a major aspect to how a lot of our generation fills their stomach. Many researchers have been trying to link the increase in obesity to the consumption of industrialized food within the past few decades, but some argue that lack of physical activity has a part in the incline of overweight Americans as well. To get a complete analysis of exactly how our health is being affected by fast food industries, I am researching the following questions: Why is fast food so popular? How does fast food consumption affect adolescent obesity? What health risks are related to fast food consumption? What are other factors that could possibly contribute to the obesity problem? And should fast food be completely omitted from a healthy diet? These questions will be helpful to determine healthy lifestyle choices for families who do not know which way to go when dealing with the issue of industrialized food. Conducting research was a necessity before I could form an opinion about the fast food industry. During a two week period in October 2010, I examined six different sources. These sources include four academic journal articles, one book, and one magazine article. The magazine article by Clare Ulrich hinted on almost all of my questions but did not go into specific detail about each one. One academic journal by Stender, Dyerberg, and Astrup was not very helpful in answering my preliminary questions, but had me posing another question about the ingredients that make fast food so unhealthy. The academic journal article written by Raymond Gozzi Jr. answered some of my questions about why Americans keep going back to their favorite fast food restaurants. An article from the book Food and an academic journal article by Nestle and Young were very helpful in expressing different factors that could be affecting obesity rates. Glassner, Barry. â€Å"Environmental Factors and Genetics Are the Source of Obesity. † Food. Ed. Jan Grover. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. 158-165. Print. Barry Glassner, a sociology professor at the University of Southern California, discusses his beliefs that obesity is not linked to food consumption in his academic journal article Environmental Factors and Genetics Are the Source of Obesity. Glassner suggests that other factors such as genetics, stress and inactivity are responsible for the obesity epidemic among Americans. The author mentions that there are so many diet fads because no one knows exactly what foods make a person gain weight or if any foods do at all. Glassner includes in his article that genes are the main reason for overweight people. He says that natural selection and natural resistance to obesity are the main factors to weight gain. Then the author links economic stress to the reason Americans are now more overweight. The article says that stress is a major factor to eating habits and since the economy is doing poorly right now, Americans are over eating to aliviate the stress and not staying active due to long work hours. Glassner claims that most fast food bashers try to convince the public that there is a direct link to obesity and fast food consumption, but provide no real evidence to support their thesis. This article helped answer my research questions about other factors that could affect the incline in obesity. Gozzi Jr. , Raymond. â€Å"The Fast Food Franchise as Metaphor. † A Review of General Semantics 53. 3 (1996): 322-325. Print. Raymond, Gozzi Jr. is an Assosiate Professor of the Television-Radio Department at Ithaca College. He wrote the academic journal article, The Fast Food Franchise as Metaphor which states, â€Å"A fast food franchise is an embodied metaphor for the perfect system†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (323). The author believes that people love knowing they will get the same product every time they come back. Gozzi also looks at other business franchises and compares them to human love of predictability. The crash of the fast food era is also mentioned in this article. The author explains that the fast food industry has changed in order to maintain steady business flow by adding salads and breakfast, but he also wonders how long franchises will last in our society. This information was useful to me in answering my question about why fast food is so popular. None of my other information elaborates on Americans wanting fast food because of the familiarity so this article brought a different prospective to my research. Stender, S. , J. Dyerberg, and A. Astrup. â€Å"Fast food: unfriendly and unhealthy. † International Journal of Obesity 31. 6 (2007): 887-890. Print. The academic journal article, â€Å"Fast food: unfriendly and healthy,† by Stender, Dyerberg, and Astrup, looks at the more factual aspect of the effects of fast food consumption. Stender and Dyerberg work together at the Department of Clinical Biochemistry and at the Gentofte Hospital at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark while Astrup also works at the University of Copenhagen for the Department of Human Nutrition and the Centre for Advanced Food Studies. This article examines actual studies of the difference of an American who eats fast food frequently and one who does not. The authors of the article include the fattening and unhealthy contents of industrialized food from the chains McDonald’s and KFC. To finish the article, the authors include a section about some items that are being done to make the fast food industry more consumer friendly such as nutritional labeling on all food products. This article made me consider and answered another question that would be beneficial to my research: What contents in fast food make nutritionists brand is so unhealthy? Americans need to know what to look out for in certain fast foods so we are able to limit or omit the unhealthy aspects from our diets. Ulrich, Clare. â€Å"The Economics of Obesity: Costs, Causes, and Controls. † Human Ecology 33. 3 (2005): 10-13. Print. Clare Ulrich discusses the effects that the fast food industry has on the American population. She begins her article with a heavy statistic that death from obesity, has increased by 33 percent from 1990. Ulrich obtains some of her information about the cost and reasons why people choose fast food from the presentation, â€Å"Economics of obesity,† by John Cawley. The author also uses information from the Surgeon General about the percentage of Americans who are overweight or obese. She also includes the percent of childhood obesity in the United States and some possible reasons that this number has increased since 1950. This article was helpful to me in answering the questions: Why is fast food so popular? How does fast food consumption affect adolescent obesity? What are the health risks are related to fast food consumption? Although this article did give me useful information about my inquiries, it did not go into extensive detail about what keeps Americans hooked on fast food, how obesity effects children, and how fast food is accurately linked to fast food consumption. Wood, Marcia. â€Å"Kids, Fast Food, and Obesity. † Agricultural Research 57. 9 (2009): 20-21. Print. Marcia Woods writes about the results of a study of kid’s meals at fast food restaurants done by pediatrician Jason A. Mendoza in her article Kids, Fast Food, and Obesity. Wood says that Mendoza and his team of researchers from the Children’s National Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine, did an analysis of ten fast food franchises who served kid’s meals. The author says Mendoza found only three percent of the meals met the nutritional set by the National School Lunch Program for children ages five to nine. Wood includes why the meals did not make the grade based on Mendoza’s research. The author says the research is conducted because of the growing numbers of childhood obesity and the increase in meals eaten away from home. Woods concludes her article with potential health consequences from being obese as a child. This article answered my question about the effects of childhood obesity and also my latest question about the content in fast food that makes it deemed unhealthy. Mendoza’s research is very helpful as a credible source that explains why children could be gaining more weight. Young, Lisa R. , and Marion Nestle. â€Å"Portion Sizes and Obesity: Responses of Fast-Food Companies. † Journal of Public Health Policy 28. 2 (2007): 238-248. Print. Portion Sizes and Obesity: Responses of Fast-Food Companies by Lisa R. Young and Marion Nestle discusses the relationship between the rise in portion sizes and weight gain among Americans. The authors believe that food is not specifically the reason for the increased obesity rate, but the much larger portion sizes since 1998. This article examines and compares the sizes of the most popular items sold at fast food restaurants: soft drinks, hamburgers, and French fries. The three fast food franchises chosen for the research were McDonald’s, Wendy’s and Burger King. The data in the article includes a table of portion sizes in the years 1998, 2002 and 2006. The research shows that the portions have increased in almost all areas. Nestle and Young also look at what these fast food franchises have done to reduce portion sizes in response to media pressure. The authors then include data from the original sizes of soda, French fries and hamburgers in 1955 to 2006. Young and Nestle conclude that fast food restaurants have done very little or nothing to reduce portion sizes and promote healthy numbers or caloric intake. The article was useful to answer my questions: What are other factors that could possibly contribute to the obesity problem? And should fast food be completely omitted from a healthy diet? Portion size is a big factor to weight gain with any type of food and the studies showed me that the portions since 1998 and 1955 have drastically changed which could link it to obesity.

Rhetorical Analysis Of Socrates s Gorgias - 855 Words

In Gorgias by Plato, Socrates questions and stands his ground on the disadvantages of Rhetoric. Like Socrates, I believe that Rhetoric is a progressive form of language used to enhance one’s self by convincing others of their perspective and gain something in return for it, and that it shouldn’t be used because Rhetoric is dangerous to use to any person who could potentially use it for the wrong purpose. Socrates believes that rhetoric is a branch of flattery (Plato 27). Socrates makes it known that Rhetoric is not something anybody should use because it would turn that person evil. He goes on to discuss about how every action that one person does, has an â€Å"equal and opposite reaction† to the rest of the universe (Plato 42). And with that, in our class discussion, Taylor mentions a game that just recently came out where any little thing you do can kill or save someone else in the game. Callicles and Gorgias have their own opinion of what rhetoric is, and both of theirs are somewhat similar. For Socrates, his definition differs as he says, â€Å"Well then, to me, Gorgias, rhetoric seems not to be an artistic pursuit at all, but that of a shrewd, courageous spirit which is naturally clever at dealing with men; and I call the chief part of it flattery (Plato 23).† Socrates makes this statement to explain that rhetoric is not a profession of any sort; rhetoric is just the praise and complimenting of men to get them to do something. Which I feel as though would work only on those