It is necessary for a transformative leader to act as an ethical and moral representation if they want to exude genuine authenticity in their role. "A leader is deserving of recognition as a moral agent if he or she possesses a developed conscience and behaves in a manner that is kind, charitable, and selfless rather than in a manner that is selfish or harmful," (Leadership with Authentic Character and Transformational Potential) A leader will service his team to guarantee that they are prepared for any challenge by ensuring that they are developed and skilled. Accountability for leaders should be based on the behaviours they exhibit, the methods they employ, and the incentives or consequences they bring about. Authentic transformational leadership can be defined as "a leader who demonstrates ethical behaviour and personal character while performing the four leadership behaviours including idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration." In other words, an authentic transformational leader is someone who acts in an ethical manner and has a strong sense of personal character (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). The transformational leadership model has its precise counterpart in the pseudo-transformational leadership model. "Pseudo-transformational leadership is seen as personalised leadership because it places more emphasis on the self-interest of the leader than it does on the interests of others" (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). "Pseudo-transformational leaders tend to make short-term gains that ultimately result in long-term expenses," which is not the case with transformational leaders, who are responsible for long-lasting organisational turnarounds. (Kraft 2015). Building relationships and maintaining open communication that revolves around a common vision, set of objectives, and set of values are essential components of transformational leadership. There are a number of criticisms that can be levelled against the theory of transformational leaders. Some of these criticisms include the assertions that leaders engage in impression management, that they are liable to face accusations of amorality, consensus, and participatory decision-making, that they manipulate followers for the purposes of the leader and potentially against their own, and that the theory can result in dictatorship and the oppression of minority viewpoints by the majority. In this piece, I'd like to argue against that unfavourable idea since, contrary to what it suggests, I feel that genuine transformational leaders are the real ethnical leaders. I shall demonstrate in this paper why true transformational leaders are preferable to those who pretend to be transformational leaders. As a result, they are concerned with 1) their moral character and their worries for both themselves and others; 2) the ethical values that are instilled in their vision and communication, which followers have the option to accept or reject; and 3) the morality of the action in which the leaders and followers engage and pursue.Essay writing Services of Academic Master is providing help to world wide people in their works for increasing performance.
Integrity of character and consideration both for oneself and for others

The moral character of the individuals involved as well as the manner in which they demonstrate concern for both themselves and others are two of the most critical distinguishing characteristics of real and phoney transformative leaders. There is a distinction between genuine transformational leaders, who "as moral agents, expand the domain of effective freedom, the horizon of conscience" (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999), and pseudo transformational leaders, who display narcissism, flawed vision, and a need for power. Authentic transformational leaders are distinguished from pseudo transformational leaders by their ability to "expand the domain of effective freedom, the horizon of conscience." "We are not so much referring to what is done as we are to the kind of person by whom we take it to have been done," We establish a connection with the agent's character through inferring their motivations and goals from their actions. (Mayo, 2014, p.141). A leader is deserving of respect as a moral agent if he or she possesses a good conscience and behaves in a way that is kind, generous, and not self-centered. Pseudo-transformational leaders will demonstrate that they do not have a well-established conscience and will do activities with the goal of causing harm to others. According to Aristotle, "leaders cannot be 'accidentally just,' nor can they be just if they merely appear to be serving the interests of followers when, in fact, they are not" (O'Toole, 2005, p. 203). Aristotle also believed that "leaders cannot be just if they merely appear to be serving the interests of followers when, in fact, they are not."

The terms "leadership" and "micromanagement" are not interchangeable in any way. "The attributes that allow a leader to explain the emotions and ambitions of others, to inspire them with trust and hope," are the foundation of leadership. (Solomon, 1999, p.62). Leaders that supervise their followers in order to serve his or her own goals rather than the interests of the followers can only be executing a dictatorship, which is the actual definition of faux transformational leadership. This type of leadership is not transformative at all. A lack of submission on the part of the leader is inconsistent with transformative leadership and should be avoided. Despite this, a transformational leader shouldn't shy away from displaying their authority in any way. Any kind of leader needs to project some sort of authority and make use of it to drive his or her group. True transformational leaders have the ability to motivate and include others, as well as make use of their skills, in order to empower others around them. Fake transformational leaders, on the other hand, will utilise their position for their own benefit. "This dichotomy gets to the heart of transformational leadership, which holds that leadership that abuses power in order to maximise self-interest, regardless of the interests of followers, is anathema to genuine transformative leadership." (Christie, Barling, and Turner p. 2944).

The vast majority of texts portray leadership as a single component, but in reality, it requires an exceptional group of people. In my opinion, an organisation need to make it possible for each and every member to be recognised for their own achievements. Instead, the self-interest of a leader ought to be combined with the interest of serving the interest of all members of the organisation. A trustworthy leader must have a constructive outlook on the requirements and objectives of the organisation so that they can be met. True authentic leaders are always looking for ways to better their organisation, and they do it out of a selfless concern for the welfare of their followers. They put their own interests second to the goals of the people they lead. According to O'Toote (2005), p.199, "the conscious purpose of a just leader at all times is to help followers achieve what is good for them, which, on occasion, may be something different from what they think they desire." (This quote is from O'Toote's book.) Everything has a cost for the pseudo individuals, regardless of what it is. Pseudo-leaders have the mistaken belief that they can "buy" the support of their followers with enough money, perks, and other inducements. "A pseudo transformational leader has high inspirational talent and attractiveness, but is also manipulative. He or she dominates his or her followers and guides them toward his or her own values" (Northouse 2019). It is essential for me as a transformational leader to provide as an example to my team of how ethnically appropriate behaviour should be carried out.

There is also a distinction between the two styles of leadership in terms of how much concern one shows for themselves and others. When it comes to being concerned for both the team and oneself, one additional consideration that may be taken into account is servant leadership. According to Hale and Fields (2007), "servant leaders prioritise the well-being of their followers over their own self-interests and place an emphasis on follower growth." despite the fact that "Authentic transformational leadership creates a more logical and realistic definition of self — a self that is related to friends, family, and community, whose wellbeing may be more essential to oneself than one's own," (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Pseudo transformational leaders, on the other hand, are driven solely by their own self-interest and disregard the best interests of their team. reaching the conclusion that it is more vital to do what works for the leader than it is to do what is best for the rest of the company. Pseudo-transformation leaders are people who take advantage of the people they lead in order to further themselves. They only care for their team inasmuch as it facilitates the accomplishment of their individual objectives, and nothing else. "The forced polarity between what one ought to do and what is in one's own self-interest, as if these were always and always opposed, is the most pernicious trap in business ethics," said one expert. "This is the most insidious trap in business ethics." (Solomon, 1999, p.32). Even though it could take place once in a while, a persistent pattern of this forced polarity almost always indicates a lack of vision, thought, and imitation on the side of the leader. The transformative leader who has a vision for his or her team and who is able to convey that vision to his or her team will not have this issue as a recurring problem.