Literature Comparison - Essay Example

The charismatic leader must base his or her aura and exceptional 'gifts' on the emotional appeal of their followers. The charismatic leader can see a clear vision and stimulates the follower to follow it and become just as elevated as the leader. Negative aspects of the charismatic leader may include streaks of narcissism, self-aggrandizement, and a forced or contrived distance from followers, all in the efforts of maintaining hero status. Miller contrasts the charismatic leader with the transformational, or transforming leader as expounded by Burns, but importantly expanded with Boulding's theory of love.

Burns theory defines the transformational leader as one who basically seeks to convert followers into leaders and into moral agents. Boulding’s identifies love as a type of power. There is no power outside of human valuation. Power integrates human valuation within organizations, and 'the most fundamental form of integrative power is the power of love' (p, 184) There is no competitive, opposing, or abusive force in Boulding's concept of power. Merged into Burn’s view, love becomes the integrator and the enabling force allowing the transforming leader to empower the follower by letting them have and pursue their own vision, and to enable a dimension of mutual interaction where both leader and follower are being transformed.

The leader is able to see that the followers’ visions can align with that of the organization in a cooperative and sharing way. Leaders in this way learn from followers just as followers learn from leaders. Whereas the charismatic leader must seek agreement and commitment from followers as to a certain vision he or she is credited with having, the transforming leader offers a context for sharing and participation in the process of vision making. Weiner’s shapes a picture of the transformational leader as one who is more combative and confrontational.

Importantly it is based on the theories of educator Paulo Freire. Freire pursued his theories from a personal knowledge of poverty and hunger and essentially sought to make structural changes in the way education was being delivered to the poor. Weiner portrays the leader as doing “oppositional work” but working within the cultural hegemony as theorized by Antonio Gramsci. Gramsi refined Marxism to recognize that there was a civil society that was accepted by most people. This society had values and beliefs that formed a hegemony.

Gramsi believed that this cultural hegemony could be changed from the inside, gradually, without a violent overthrow. This was basically Friere’s belief, that he could educate the poor and that they themselves could bring structural change upon society. Weiner writes as if teachers are continuously battling neoliberal and right wing ideology. But he accepts Freire’s message as one of social justice and democracy. Freire dedicated his life to serving the poor. Through his example Weiner is able to define the transformational leader as an activist one who is dedicated to change but who, importantly, works within the “dominant structures of power and authority” to serve the poor (p. 91). Today we can ask ourselves what kinds of leaders are appropriate in a world that has just experienced a great economic recession and the wants and needs of the poor and have-nots have become more sharp and bare?

Miller noted the charismatic corporation heads who seem to continuously highlight themselves today,