Is transformational leadership all bad? No, transformational leadership like any style of leadership is subject to who the leader is. Great leaders such as George Washington, Elon Musk and Franklin D. Roosevelt are all examples of transformational leaders who have had tremendous impacts on the organizations they have been a part of. I write these flaws to truly emphasize the potential risks of transformational leadership because of it lack of focus on the ethical aspects and its ability to trample minorities. But this begs the question what alternative is there to transformational leadership? There are other leadership styles that encourage ethical decision making but I would like to briefly discuss the one described by Keeley because he describes
…show more content…
In this checks and balance system power is divided among factions so that each group of followers can be represented when making a decision (Ciulla 129). In the United States government the power is broken up into the three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial with a 4th branch being the states according to the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights. This separate government is further broken up with the legislative branch being split up into its house and senate components (each elected to represent both large and small states respectively). Each of these branches have checks and balances against one another according to the contract made by the United States government, the constitution, which outlines this system. The thinking of James Madison, one of the founders of the checks and balance system for the United States government, is that a minority faction can gain support in one of the branches of …show more content…
First of all this system is slow in any organization it is run in. Because of all the gridlock caused by representing all of the diverse constituents in any organization it can take a long time to finally make a decision. A great example of this is when congress tried to abolish slavery shortly after the constitution was written. The faction consisting of slave owners was able to stall the abolition of slavery till 1865 more than 80 years after it was discussed (Ciulla 131). So while in the very long run it seems to be ethical, this system takes its time to react to wrong doings and it cannot easily fix unethical things that are already in place when the system was set up. The second and last disadvantage I will discuss in this paper (because I can see more than two disadvantages but I don’t have enough time to discuss them) is that this form of organizational leadership is very dependent on the rules formulated in the contract made by the organization because these rules can easily be exploited. In the United States government whether it is earmarks in the legislative branch or executive orders in the executive branch, these rules set forth by the framers of the organization will be exploited and the boundaries can be pushed when constituents/followers allow it. I like these Madisonian ideas however it is not perfect, it is just another system that allows government to
In this checks and balance system power is divided among factions so that each group of followers can be represented when making a decision (Ciulla 129). In the United States government the power is broken up into the three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial with a 4th branch being the states according to the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights. This separate government is further broken up with the legislative branch being split up into its house and senate components (each elected to represent both large and small states respectively). Each of these branches have checks and balances against one another according to the contract made by the United States government, the constitution, which outlines this system. The thinking of James Madison, one of the founders of the checks and balance system for the United States government, is that a minority faction can gain support in one of the branches of …show more content…
First of all this system is slow in any organization it is run in. Because of all the gridlock caused by representing all of the diverse constituents in any organization it can take a long time to finally make a decision. A great example of this is when congress tried to abolish slavery shortly after the constitution was written. The faction consisting of slave owners was able to stall the abolition of slavery till 1865 more than 80 years after it was discussed (Ciulla 131). So while in the very long run it seems to be ethical, this system takes its time to react to wrong doings and it cannot easily fix unethical things that are already in place when the system was set up. The second and last disadvantage I will discuss in this paper (because I can see more than two disadvantages but I don’t have enough time to discuss them) is that this form of organizational leadership is very dependent on the rules formulated in the contract made by the organization because these rules can easily be exploited. In the United States government whether it is earmarks in the legislative branch or executive orders in the executive branch, these rules set forth by the framers of the organization will be exploited and the boundaries can be pushed when constituents/followers allow it. I like these Madisonian ideas however it is not perfect, it is just another system that allows government to