Transformational Leadership, Ethics, and Courageous Followership
This paper examines the ethical foundations of authentic transformational leadership as articulated by Bass and Steidlmeier, contrasting it with the transactional leadership model grounded in self-interest. Drawing on Chaleff's "The Courageous Follower," the paper explores the active moral role of followers, arguing that influence in leader-follower relationships is bidirectional rather than hierarchical. The paper identifies the multiple sources of power available to followers — including knowledge, relationships, integrity, and the ability to withdraw support — and describes how authentic transformational leaders inspire inner commitment, collective growth, and ethical conduct. Together, these frameworks constitute a model of transformational followership built on shared moral responsibility.
- Introduction: States paper objectives on leadership and followership
- Transactional and Transformational Leadership: Contrasts ethical bases of both leadership models
- The Importance of the Follower's Actions: Argues followers share moral accountability with leaders
- Powers Possessed by Followers: Enumerates sources of follower influence and power
- Authentic Leadership Examined in Depth: Details how authentic leaders inspire ethical commitment
- Summary and Conclusion: Synthesizes ethics of transformational leadership model
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Clearly anchors arguments in named theoretical sources (Bass & Steidlmeier; Chaleff), giving the paper a traceable scholarly foundation even at an introductory level.
- Moves logically from the ethics of leadership models to the active role of followers, showing that moral responsibility flows in both directions — an insight that distinguishes the paper from a simple leadership summary.
- The enumeration of follower powers provides concrete, memorable structure that transforms an abstract concept into actionable categories.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative framework analysis: it places the transactional and transformational leadership models side by side, evaluates each against an ethical standard, and uses that contrast to argue for the superiority of authentic transformational leadership. This technique — define, contrast, evaluate — is a reliable structure for short analytical essays in organizational behavior and leadership studies.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a statement of purpose, then moves through four substantive sections: (1) a theoretical comparison of transactional and transformational leadership ethics; (2) the moral significance of follower action; (3) a taxonomy of follower powers; and (4) a deeper examination of authentic transformational leadership qualities. A brief conclusion synthesizes the argument. The structure mirrors a classic expository essay, making it a useful model for undergraduate leadership courses.
Introduction
This paper examines what constitutes authentic leadership according to Bass and Steidlmeier, and what significant questions remain about the implementation and relevance of authentic leadership. It also addresses insights gained from Chapters 1 and 2 of The Courageous Follower concerning the role of the follower, and describes the moral responsibilities of followers toward their leaders — that is, the nature of transformational followership.
Transactional and Transformational Leadership
Bass and Steidlmeier report that the ethical dimensions of transformational leadership are constructed upon three foundational elements: (1) the leader's moral character; (2) the legitimacy of the ethical values that support the leader's vision, its articulation, and the program of leadership accepted or rejected by those being led; and (3) the moral quality of the "processes of social ethical choice and action that leaders and followers engage in and collectively pursue" (Bass & Steidlmeier, n.d., p. 176). Transformational leaders lead by example and translate those examples and values to those they are leading. It is reported that transformational and transactional leadership "have strong philosophical underpinnings and ethical components" (Bass & Steidlmeier, n.d., p. 177).
From an individualist philosophical perspective, transactional leaders are called for when both followers and leaders are pursuing their own self-interests (Bass & Steidlmeier, n.d., paraphrased). The moral legitimacy associated with the transactional leader is described as "demanding in many ways" and dependent on "granting the same liberty and opportunity to others that one claims for oneself — or telling the truth, keeping promises, distributing to each what is due, and employing valid incentives or sanctions" (Bass & Steidlmeier, n.d., p. 177). The transactional leader is thus "grounded in a world view of self-interest" (Bass & Steidlmeier, n.d., p. 177). However, ethicists find that the exclusive pursuit of self-interest is not desirable. The authentic transformational leadership model, by contrast, provides "a more reasonable and realistic concept of self — a self that is connected to friends, family, and community whose welfare may be more important to oneself than one's own" (Bass & Steidlmeier, n.d., p. 177).
The Importance of the Follower's Actions
Chaleff reports that followers and leaders "both orbit around the purpose; followers do not orbit around the leader" (Chaleff, 2009, p. 13). Each individual is responsible for their own actions, whether following or leading. Moreover, each individual must understand that they are responsible for the actions of others whom they have the power to influence. Every social accomplishment requires "complex group effort and therefore, leadership and followership," since both are essential when a common goal is being pursued. Some believe that influence in the leader-follower relationship flows in only one direction, but this is not the case — followers have a "great capacity to influence the relationship" (Chaleff, 2009, p. 13).
Leaders are accountable for the performance and actions of followers; however, followers are also accountable for their leaders' actions and performance. Leaders require support and assistance when their actions need to be corrected. This mutual accountability is a cornerstone of ethical organizational life.
References
Bass, B., & Steidlmeier, P. (n.d.). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior.
Chaleff, I. (2009). The courageous follower: Standing up to & for our leaders. Berrett-Koehler.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.