“A Good Leader” A Biographical Study of a Political Leader Manuel

‘Way Kurat’ Zamora in Compostela Valley

This study is anchored from Bass (2006) transformational leadership theory in

terms of how the leader affects followers, who are intended to trust, admire and

respect the transformational leader. He identified three ways in which leaders

transform followers. Increasing their awareness of task importance and value. Getting

them to focus first on team or organizational goals, rather than their own interests.

Activating their higher-order needs. (Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. 2006)

Burns defined transformational leadership as a process where leaders and followers

engage in a mutual process of 'raising one another to higher levels of morality and

motivation.' Transformational leaders raise the bar by appealing to higher ideals

and values of followers. In doing so, they may model the values themselves and

use charismatic methods to attract people to the values and to the leader. Burns' view

is that transformational leadership is more effective than transactional leadership,

where the appeal is to more selfish concerns. An appeal to social values thus

encourages people to collaborate, rather than working as individuals (and potentially

competitively with one another). He also views transformational leadership as an

ongoing process rather than the discrete exchanges of the transactional approach.

Burns, J. M. (1978)
Review Related Literature

The leadership abilities of famous political leaders, statesmen, businessmen, and

military commanders have fascinated people around the world. The topic of leadership

has drawn the attention of researchers from different fields of study. While the literature

on leadership is abundant, the present study focused on leadership in Mongolian higher

education. Therefore, it was important to examine three particular bodies of literature.

First, research on American leadership theories is presented. Next, studies on

leadership in higher education are presented. Finally, studies that have employed the

instrument used to collect data in the present study are described.

Leaders have a significant role in creating the state of mind that is the society. They can

serve as symbols of the moral unity of the society. They can express the values that

hold the society together. Most important, they can conceive and articulate goals that lift

people out of their petty preoccupations, carry them above the conflicts that tear a

society apart, and unite them in the pursuit of objectives worthy of their best efforts. (J.

W. Gardner, 1965)

Great leaders are ethical stewards who generate high levels of commitment from

followers. We define ethical stewardship as the honoring of duties owed to employees,

stakeholders, and society in the pursuit of long-term wealth creation. Our model of

relationship between leadership behaviors, perceptions of trustworthiness, and the

nature of ethical stewardship reinforces the importance of ethical governance in dealing

with employees and in creating organizational systems that are congruent with

espoused organizational values. (Cam Caldwell, 2007)

ambitious goals that may have previously seemed unreachable. This factor, which is

distinct from the idealized charismatic effect, “employs or adds nonintellectual,

emotional qualities to the influence process” Here, the leader raises followers’

expectations and inspires action by communicating confidence that they can achieve

these ambitious goals—described as the Pygmalion effect. By predicting that followers

are able to reach ambitious goals, and showing absolute confidence and resolve that

this outcome will occur, followers are inspired to reach the requisite level of

performance beyond normal expectations, and a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs. (Bass,

1985,).

Weber (1947) was the first to use the term “charisma” and describe the charismatic

leader as one who could bring about social change. He identified these types of leaders

who arise “in times of psychic, physical, economic, ethical, religious, [or] political

distress”. For Weber (1968), charisma in leaders referred to “specific gifts of the body

and spirit not accessible to everybody”. These leaders were attributed “with

supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities” and

could undertake great feats. Weber (1968) believed that followers of a charismatic

leader willingly place their destiny in their leader’s hands and support the leader’s

mission that may have arisen out of “enthusiasm, or of despair and hope”. Weber

(1968) argued that charismatic authority is different from bureaucratic authority and that

at the core of charisma is an emotional appeal whose “attitude is revolutionary and

transvalues everything; it makes a sovereign break with all traditional or rational norms”.

Finally, Weber (1968) stated that the charismatic effect and legacy of the leader may
continue as artifacts of the organizational or societal culture, but then wane as the

organization or society is enveloped in the rational and methodical processes of the

bureaucracy. (Weber 1968)

Leadership particularly with respect to transformative effects of leaders on followers.

Burns defined leadership as “inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent

the values and the motivations—the wants and needs, the aspirations and

expectations—of both leaders and followers”. (Burns, 1978)