Machiavelli's Transformational Leadership Philosophy Paper

1. Why, in Machiavelli’s view, was the implementation of change fraught with danger? Do you agree with his views? Why, why not?

In Machiavelli’s view, implementing change is fraught with danger. He believes that initiating change is a very difficult process filled with risks (Graetz et al. 2011). I agree with Machiavelli’s view that executing change in any situation is filled with danger because change is an inevitable process where individuals are not prepared to take the risks involved. Change experts also believe that this is “a task filled with complexity and challenge” (Graetz et al. 2011). Further, change is an unrestrained process that can be “resisted by some and welcomed by others” (MacGuire & Hutchings 2006). In turn, I believe
Distinguish between the traditional model of leadership and the sorts of skills and attributes required for leading the twenty-first century organisation.

Traditional model of leadership involves a hierarchical organisational structure with a top-down approach (Graetz et al. 2011). Traditional leadership includes total control over its followers and dictatorship that is now considered as an archaism in today’s society. However, there are still traditional leadership attributes invested within leaders that are still important. For example, Graetz et al. (2011) states that integrative power does not mean that leaders should not exercise authority and power but rather learn to balance authority, economic and integrative power in a given situation is essential.

In today’s society, management has now recognised the need to involve employees at all levels of the firm and move away from traditional approach. For an organisation to be successful in the 21st century, leaders must acquire the skills and attributes. Leaders must have an understanding of change and be competent in creating and adapting to change for their organisation to survive (Marquardt n.d.). In addition, Graetz et al. (2011) states that 21st century leaders should inspire rather than direct, involve employees instead of taking total control and to engage the trust and commitment of people. Therefore, it is clear that there is a big difference between the traditional model of leadership with today’s required leadership
How does charismatic change leadership differ from the commander approach? Can you think of examples of these two leadership styles?

Charismatic change leadership involves a leader that can inspire others through their personal characteristics and interpersonal skills in order to commit to their vision (Graetz et al. 2011). This approach is a widely adopted leadership style in which charismatic leaders encourage followers to cultivate a strong attachment to the organisation and display high performance levels (Yang, Tsai & Liao 2014). For example, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King are great leaders who were able to inspire followers with their charismatic personality (Roberts 2011).

In comparison, a commander approach involves a leader who displays a directive style. This differs from the charismatic change leadership style, as commanders display a traditional leadership style that focuses on gaining compliance. Commanders prefer control in all aspects of the organisation as much as possible. In this approach to innovation, leaders dictate what to innovate on which in some circumstances works well. Steve Jobs displays this type of leadership style as he uses a top-down approach when developing an innovative product (Verganti