Note: These questions are taken from the message posted by our professor in blackboard:

Consider some of these questions as you read...
  1. As you read about transactional and transformational leadership, consider YOUR leadership role...what do YOU do involves executing tasks over "developing potential" or "setting an example for high ethical conduct" or "challenging ways of thinking that create new insights" (Avolio, 2011, p. 50)?
  2. As you read the chapter, consider an example of transactional and transformational leadership and consider how the "thinking" behind each position shifts how others are influenced.
  3. What is the MLQ and how is it used within the framework of full range leadership?
  4. As you read through the "grey" research boxes, consider the participants, the data collection/analysis methods, and the findings. Note any patterns, questions, and moments of "aha" that emerge.
  5. As you read about the various components of full range leadership (i.e., transactional, transformational, non-leadership), consider your own experiences and jot down examples to help you make sense of the components. How would you measure each component?

Consider these questions as you view the film....

  1. Who are the “leaders” on the jury? Using our understandings from the literature, explain why.
    1. I think one of the main leaders of this movie was Davis because he showed many of the attributes of the transformational leader:
      • He sacrificed for the group his time and also put his own self on the line by going the extra mile and scoping out the scene and buying an identical knife which was against the law.
      • He challenged the status quo by voting no
        • asking great questions and getting them to think about what if... scenarios. "You don't believe the boy's story, why do you believe the womans?"
      • He showed individualized consideration by listening to group members and talking to them one on one and asking for their opinions - in the washroom as well. Even listening without interruption to Lee who was the most aggressive.
      • He demonstrated intelligence by
        • getting group members to think about facts such as acting out the scene and looking at the diagram showing his logic in terms of getting everyone to see if the testimonial given about the time it took to look out the door made sense and also about how it is quite noisy around the train to be able to hear.
        • knew the law
        • getting all to see how hard it is to remember details under emotional stress.
        • He provoked Lee to the point where he said "I'll Kill you" and got everyone to see it from the point of view of the boy who might of said it also but not meant it literally the same way Lee did in the meeting.
      • He showed vulnerability by openly saying I don't know and displayed his uncertainty and expressed his concern for talking it out.
      • He showed his care for the boy and well-being of others was more of a concern - because he did not want to just vote yes so that their own self-interest of watching the ball game and going home early could be met, he put aside his own self-interest to sacrifice for the boy. He did small kind gestures like closing the window, asking if McCardle wants water and also helping Lee Cobb put on his jacket at the end of the movie.
      • Modeled ethics by doing the right thing by saying no.

  1. Using the full range leadership theory, consider the various jurors. Are any of the jurors transactional and/or transformational leaders? Why? Use the components as described in this week's reading to support your arguments.
    1. I think that Martin was a transactional leader he wanted people to cooperate with him and do things his way and if they weren't willing he would ask them to trade places or he would punish the group by disengaging.
    2. I think Lee was also transactional because if you did not agree with him he would give negatives like yelling at them.