Transformational Leadership

need responses to two discussions one source per each. 1st Describe if Hughes is a transformational or pseudo-transformational leader. After reading Case Study 8.1, it appears that Hughes is displaying a transformational leadership style. The school was suffering from a staggering lose of students, impacting revenue for the school. Something needed to be done or there could have been major challenges for the school to keep its doors open. Hughes incorporated his experience and expertise to turn the school around, incorporate change and improve revenue. There was no mentioned that the board did or did not give him parameters to stay within. Just because a college moves away from an original mission statement does not make it a “bad” college. The school can still find ways to fight inequality, racial injustice when their financial situation is healthy. Explain if colleges operate more like businesses. Colleges have aspects of a business that should be taken into consideration in how they are run. There are operational costs, revenue through tuition, payroll and other facets that makes any business run. Colleges compete for market share and try to attract other students away from other universities (Rosowsky, 2020). The key differentiator between a BestBuy and a college is that the university is intended to be an educational facility. Many colleges receive local and federal funds because they are how they are classified. Over the past twenty years, public in-state college tuition has risen 212% (Boyington & Kerr, 2020). If colleges took the business approach, could it be possible that we would not see such a drastic rise in the cost of higher education? By recruiting business donors, did Hughes sell out the vision and values of the school? The school’s mission was to support fair trade, equality of women, support civil rights, and prepare students to improve humanity. How does requiring business donor go against this? Without financial support, the school does not have the ability to reach more student lives and in turn accomplishing the mission of preparing students to improve humanity. Improving humanity can come in a variety of forms. 2nd Describe if Hughes is a transformational or pseudo-transformational leader. Case Study 8.1 does present pseudo-transformational tendencies through the actions Hughes takes as the new President at Ferryport College. However, I am not sure I would label him solely pseudo-transformational based on the outcomes of his decisions. Hughes was appointed as a result of prospective students lacking interest in social justice efforts which resulted in a significant drop in enrollment followed by a lack of funding to cover this financial loss (Johnson, 2018, 273). The school was in trouble and what once was working for this thriving school no longer remained effective. The college needed a more business-minded leader, one that could help keep the doors open and find a way for the school to thrive again. His vision for Ferryport was inspiring to the community and those he appointed on his team. Hughes was successful in his approach but I do feel it came at a cost. Pseudo-transformational leaders are more self-centered which we can see in how Hughes took personal credit for the transformation of the school. A transformational leader would have acknowledged the community efforts that helped accomplish his vision. He also consolidated power where it once was shared, causing resentment and frustration among his faculty. Transformation leaders elevate the morality of their followers and create a healthy, ethical climate (Johnson, 2018, pg. 248). I do think Hughes also kept his distance from the faculty and expected them to jump on his beliefs and efforts which were seen as deceptive and irresponsible, because of these pseudo-transformational tendencies. Was it ethical to downplay the college’s mission in order to attract more students? In the manner, that it was handled, yes I feel this was an unethical approach. For a leader to come in and not align with or respect the founding values of an existing institution is a tragic start to generating followership. The school had recognized the lack of interest in social justice but the majority of students enrolled, along with the support of their alumni, aligned with the original mission of the college. “Preparing students to improve humanity” is a powerful message, one that is deeply rooted in the faculty and the history of the college. Choosing to change it to “ Preparing tomorrow’s successful new leaders” is a shift from those foundations beliefs, one that warrants the concerns of its followers. Hughes wasn’t looking to attract the same students based on the changes needed to turn the college around. Using the same mission statement no longer fit the direction the college was taking, which overall was a delicate move. I do believe that through effective and transparent communication this could have been handled differently. Most likely not the approach a pseudo-transformational leader would take, but one that should have been considered. By recruiting business donors, did Hughes sell out the vision and values of the school? I do not believe that recruiting business donors was a negative decision for the school. It appears to have been an essential need to ensure the college remained open. However, Hughes was deceptive in his efforts to highlight the school in a way that didn’t align with its history or values. What he presented to donors was a different vision than the one faculty and alumni worked so hard to promote. Hughes choice to manipulate the donor’s perception to align with his personal goals for the college (Johnson, 2018, pg. 247).