factors, “transformational leadership results in performance…[and] better work outcomes” (Northouse, p.169).
Suu Kyi displayed examples of these four factors throughout her career. As for the first factor, Suu Kyi was a leader who provided her “followers with a vision and a sense of mission” (Friebe). She criticized the government who was violating human rights in Myanmar, she empowered “those who feel that hope is lost” (Shaina). She gained deep respect by her followers, she was a strong role model for the Burmese and she was held accountable for doing “the right thing” (Northouse, p.167). She also fulfilled the charisma factor, she made “others want to follow the vision [she] put forward”, she had high moral standards and a vision for Myanmar …show more content…
Suu Kyi empowered her followers, nurtured them in change, and she was a strong role model for the Burmese. This approach “treats leadership as a process that occurs between followers and leaders” (Northouse, p.177), therefore the sole responsibility wont be on Suu Kyi. The approach brings in the followers in the process, making Burmese people know that they are included in making the change. Furthermore, the approach “places a strong emphasis on followers’ needs, values, and morals” (Northouse, p.177), this allows every citizen to be morally uplift and it gave growth to the whole country. However, there were some weaknesses about transformational leadership. One of the criticism is treating the approach “as a personality trait… rather than a behavior that people can learn” (Northouse, p.178).Also, the approach assumes motivation for the followers. The approach doesn’t take into consideration about the situational change, they assume that all of the followers want to work together. Transformational leadership is not effective in specific situations, for example if there were some minorities that did not believe in democracy, would they be excluded? Finally, the result of transformational leadership is very time consuming (Travis). Suu Kyi had to invest her time and sacrificed her whole family in order to transform the government and people’s belief. Regardless of the weaknesses, with time Suu Kyi proved herself that she was an effective transformational leadership, she created a vision that truly helped her country and her
Suu Kyi displayed examples of these four factors throughout her career. As for the first factor, Suu Kyi was a leader who provided her “followers with a vision and a sense of mission” (Friebe). She criticized the government who was violating human rights in Myanmar, she empowered “those who feel that hope is lost” (Shaina). She gained deep respect by her followers, she was a strong role model for the Burmese and she was held accountable for doing “the right thing” (Northouse, p.167). She also fulfilled the charisma factor, she made “others want to follow the vision [she] put forward”, she had high moral standards and a vision for Myanmar …show more content…
Suu Kyi empowered her followers, nurtured them in change, and she was a strong role model for the Burmese. This approach “treats leadership as a process that occurs between followers and leaders” (Northouse, p.177), therefore the sole responsibility wont be on Suu Kyi. The approach brings in the followers in the process, making Burmese people know that they are included in making the change. Furthermore, the approach “places a strong emphasis on followers’ needs, values, and morals” (Northouse, p.177), this allows every citizen to be morally uplift and it gave growth to the whole country. However, there were some weaknesses about transformational leadership. One of the criticism is treating the approach “as a personality trait… rather than a behavior that people can learn” (Northouse, p.178).Also, the approach assumes motivation for the followers. The approach doesn’t take into consideration about the situational change, they assume that all of the followers want to work together. Transformational leadership is not effective in specific situations, for example if there were some minorities that did not believe in democracy, would they be excluded? Finally, the result of transformational leadership is very time consuming (Travis). Suu Kyi had to invest her time and sacrificed her whole family in order to transform the government and people’s belief. Regardless of the weaknesses, with time Suu Kyi proved herself that she was an effective transformational leadership, she created a vision that truly helped her country and her