Why wouldn’t change be an integral part of our definition of leadership?

Transformational Leadership and Charismatic Leadership are two
of the more popular theories currently. Much is being researched
and published on these two by numerous scholars.
“The word charisma was first used to describe a special
gift that certain individuals possess that gives them the capacity
to do extraordinary things.” Therefore this necessarily must be a
construct that is internal to the leader himself or herself.
Reflect on Table 2.1 of the Northouse book. What traits do you see
listed there in those lists that resemble charisma?
Question #1: Support or refute the following statement:
Transformational Leadership and Charismatic Leadership are both
predicated on a construct internal to the leader, so in our
integrative model that involves the leader, the follower, and the
situation, it properly resides internal to the leader. Kind of like
a trait.
“In his theory of charismatic leadership, House suggested that
charismatic leaders act in unique ways that have specific
charismatic effects on their followers.” Northouse continues.
Later, he clarifies, “In summary, charismatic leadership works
because it ties followers and their self-concepts to the
organizational identity.”
Question #2: Support or refute the following statement:
Transformational Leadership and Charismatic Leadership are both
predicated on a construct internal to the follower, so in our
integrative model that involves the leader, the follower, and the
situation, it properly resides internal to the follower.
Professor Northouse continues, “Consistent with Weber, House
contends that these charismatic effects are more likely to occur in
contexts in which followers feel distress because in stressful
situations followers look to leaders to deliver them from
difficulty.” In James MacGregor Burns’s book Leadershiphe
addresses: “Charisma occurs when there is a social crisis.” And,
further: “A leader with exceptional personal qualities emerges with
a radical vision that provides a solution to the crisis and
attracts followers who believe in the vision and perceive the
leader to be extraordinary.”
Question #3: Support or refute the following statement:
Transformational Leadership and Charismatic Leadership are both
predicated on a construct internal to the situation, so in our
integrative model that involves the leader, the follower, and the
situation, it properly resides internal to the situation.
Worthy of note… Please observe in the section addressing the
criticisms of the theories, “Transformational leaders often play a
direct role in creating change…” Back in chapter 1, the word
“change” was uttered some sixteen times by my count. Yet, in the
comments posted in Discussions, I read “change” about three times,
and that was mostly focused on how the definition of leadership had
changed over time. So, the chapter defining leadership
addresses change multiple times, but doesn’t include it in the
definition.
Question #4:
Why wouldn’t change be an integral part of our
definition of leadership?

"Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us"
Use the following coupon
"FIRST15"

Order Now

Save your time - order a paper!

Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

Order Paper Now