5/21/2017 0 Comments Burns Leadership 1978 Pdf To WordLeadership by James Mac. Gregor Burns . Burns goal with the book is to establish a foundation for the study of leadership, combining the studies of the leaders themselves and the followers. It covers the individual traits of leaders, their relationship to followers, and how they managed to accomplish great things or have such great impact. Burns divides leadership into three types: transactional, transformational, and moral. Transactional is simply a leader fulfilling the needs and desires of a group of followers or supporters. Transformational is more or less defining needs and desires or giving voice to such demands where none existed before. ![]() ![]() It is more potent, creative, and dangerous. I'm not clear on how moral leadership is distinct. Burns also distinguishes between leadership and brute power. A tyrant is not exercising leadership when he orders people to obey or die. Transformational, Transactiona l Leadership Styles and Job.
He is threatening force to get obedience. I'm glad Burns makes this distinction, otherwise the whole idea of studying leadership breaks down. The study should not be about power and authority, but about getting things to move without acting on them directly with brute force. This textbook has a number of stylistic problems that make it difficult to read, despite its substance. It's organization is shaky and many of the chapters and sections have no clear intro or conclusion to tie his thesis together. The book is a dry, boring read that meanders between secondary sources, historical anecdotes, and the author's own biased perceptions. Burns seems to be trying to place a lateral beam across several pillars with his leadership school. This isn't nearly as groundbreaking as the blurbs on the back of the book claim. Burns' conclusions are limited in scope, and don't leave a strong impression on the reader. He overuses Sigmund Freud, conceding that psychoanalysis of historical figures is not particularly accurate or helpful, then goes forward and uses it anyway. He identifies few patterns, constantly going back to the same old . His occasional delving into the sexual habits of famous leaders was purely conjecture and not worthy of this text. I wouldn't dismiss psychoanalysis as part of the study of leadership, but Burns' doesn't use it persuasively. Burns narration of historical events and the rise of certain leaders is weak. Bass Transformational Leadership Theory is one of a set of. Bass main contribution in 1985 to Burns' original theory was describing psychological. Public has become increasingly captivated by the idea of leadership. Burns’s (1978) definition, however, is the most important concept of leadership to. OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH Background. Transformational Leadership and Transactional Leadership. Burns (1978)., Burns (1978). The word transformational leadership was coined by James Victor Downton in the year 1973.James MacGregor Burns, an. Stephen said: READ SEP 2009Seminal work that introduced the idea of transformational leadership. Burns divides leadership. It isn't heavy on detail, yet the prose is still difficult to follow. The historical examples do not clearly demonstrate his thesis. He provides limit context, assuming the reader is fully apprised of the historical events. This is arrogant and lazy. I can only assume the book is meant for a graduate- level audience who have strong backgrounds in history and political science. It certainly wasn't marketed this way (Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award). Burns also betrays several serious ideological biases that are troubling. In his discussions on revolutions and transformational leadership, he spends 7- 9 pages on the American Revolution and other enlightenment era transformations while going 1. Russian Revolution of 1. Communism in China. Burn's section on Lenin doesn't paint him as a leader, but merely someone who was extraordinarily lucky. Communism triumphed due in large part to the dramatic weakness of the Czars and the decaying feudal system of Russia. It wasn't a victory of leadership, but one of a lack of alternatives. In Mao's case, his leadership ended when he took power at which point he became a tyrant. By Burns own admission, a tyranny is not leadership. He speaks glowingly of these revolutions despite the bloodshed, poverty, misery, and war it brought to the respective countries. His positive view of the Cultural Revolution in China is absolutely stunning, ignoring its atrocities and utter failure. The book was published in 1. We know more today about the Soviet Union and the experiences of Communist China in the 2. It is fair to say Burns was very wrong in his opinion of these two political systems and their relevance to his school of leadership. His discussions of Gandhi, FDR, and Wilson are far more relevant. Why give it 3 stars with all these problems? Burns combines multiple disciplines for a fairly reasonable case against compartmentalizing social sciences (this was his implicit objective). His study of leadership became the basis for later works, especially those covering popular and business leadership. Finally, I for the most part agree with his primary thesis and the supporting definitions early in the book. So it gets an average grade from me. Still, unless you are a nerdy student of political science, I would NOT recommend this book.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |