| Course | LDR-3240 Leaders in History |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Module 3 application paper: moral leadership and ideal leadership |
| Length | About 542 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for LDR 3240 Module 3
Feared or Transforming? Machiavelli, Burns and a Manager's Choice About an Uncomfortable Truth
Student Name
Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership, Thomas Edison State University
LDR-3240: Leaders in History
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Feared or Transforming? Machiavelli, Burns and a Manager's Choice About an Uncomfortable Truth
Introduction
Writers on leadership have long disagreed about whether good leaders must also be good people. Two influential answers stand far apart. Machiavelli, writing The Prince in the early sixteenth century, advised rulers to do what keeps power, including deceiving and using cruelty when necessary. Burns (1978), writing after the upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s, argued that the highest form of leadership transforms both leaders and followers morally. This paper compares the two and tests them against a present-day decision.
Machiavelli's Realism
Machiavelli (2005) argued that a ruler who tries to be good in all things will come to ruin among so many who are not good, and so must learn to be able not to be good and to use that ability as necessity requires. He advised that it is safer to be feared than loved if one cannot be both, though a ruler must avoid being hated. Machiavelli was describing what he saw in the violent politics of Renaissance Italy, and his realism remains a warning against naive leadership. But his measure of success is the ruler's survival, not the followers' welfare.
Burns's Transforming Leadership
Burns (1978) distinguished transactional leadership, an exchange of one thing for another, such as jobs for votes, from transforming leadership, in which leaders engage followers' higher needs and values so that both are raised to higher levels of motivation and morality. For Burns, moral leadership must serve followers' real needs and be judged by whether it produces the social change it promises. Wills (1995) makes a related point: a leader who manipulates followers toward goals they do not share is not leading but using them.
Testing the Two Views
My job is supervising dispatchers for a county paratransit service, an invented composite. Over the past quarter, missed rides, when a rider waits and no van arrives, have risen from 2 percent to 5 percent, mostly because of driver shortages. The county board will review our contract next month. A Machiavellian manager might keep the numbers vague, blame the drivers' union and protect the agency's position. A transforming leader would report the problem honestly, explain its causes and ask the board and the drivers to share in fixing it.
The Machiavellian path may protect the contract in the short run, but it treats riders, whose medical appointments are missed, as means to the agency's survival. The transforming path risks criticism but serves the riders, invites the drivers to see themselves as part of the solution and builds trust with the board.
Evaluation
Machiavelli is right that leaders operate among people who do not always act well, and that good intentions without realism fail. But Burns offers the better standard because it asks whether leadership serves the people it claims to lead. Ideal leadership combines Machiavelli's clear view of power with Burns's commitment to followers' needs. In practice that means reporting the problem honestly while also arriving with a plan the board can support.
Conclusion
I will report the missed-ride rate to the board, explain the driver shortage and propose a plan built with the drivers. That choice is less safe in Machiavelli's sense, but it is the one Burns would call leadership.
References
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Machiavelli, N. (2005). The prince (P. Bondanella, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1532)
Wills, G. (1995). Certain trumpets: The nature of leadership. Simon & Schuster.
What the LDR 3240 Module 3 instructions ask for
The third application paper focuses on concepts: moral leadership and ideal leadership. Expect to compare two or more thinkers' views on whether leaders must be moral, evaluate which better describes effective and ethical leadership and apply the comparison to a real decision. Classic sources such as Machiavelli and Burns are common, but any thinkers assigned in the module can serve. Represent each view fairly before judging it, cite the original works where possible and choose a decision from your own experience that genuinely tests the two views. Say clearly which standard of success each thinker uses, since that is where they differ most.
Inside the LDR 3240 Module 3 example
The paper opens by stating the long-running disagreement about whether good leaders must be good people. A section presents Machiavelli's realism fairly, including what it gets right. A section presents Burns's distinction between transactional and transforming leadership, with Wills's related point. A test section applies both views to a specific decision about reporting a problem. An evaluation section judges the two and proposes a synthesis, and the conclusion states the writer's decision in two sentences. The decision used to test the two views has real stakes for riders, the board and the writer, which keeps the evaluation from being abstract. Both thinkers are quoted or paraphrased from their own books.
LDR 3240 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Mentors grade this paper on accurate presentation of each thinker's view, a thoughtful evaluation, application to a real decision and clear, cited writing. Papers that present Machiavelli fairly, rather than as a straw man, and that acknowledge what his realism offers, show maturity. A decision with real stakes, analyzed through both views, demonstrates synthesis. A conclusion that takes a position and accepts its costs shows the kind of moral reasoning the module explores. Mentors also value a synthesis that keeps what is useful in each view rather than simply choosing one. Accurate citation of the translation used and of Burns's book supports the analysis. A personal decision that costs the writer something shows the reasoning is sincere rather than a classroom exercise, and mentors notice that.
Common LDR 3240 Module 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students lose points by caricaturing Machiavelli as simply evil, by summarizing both thinkers without evaluating them or by choosing a decision with no real tension. Others misattribute famous quotations. Quote or paraphrase carefully from a reliable translation. Explain what each view gets right. Pick a decision where the ethical choice has a cost. State your own position and why. Use a published translation of The Prince and give its details in your references. Avoid quoting famous lines without checking them in the source, since several common Machiavelli quotations are misattributed. A free first sample on your own LDR-3240 Module 3 paper is available on request.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More LDR 3240 and Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership sample papers
- LDR 3240 Module 1: Application Paper: Tubman and Shackleton as Leaders of Followers
- LDR 3240 Module 2: Application Paper: Frances Perkins and Henry Ford, Reform and Business Leadership
- LDR 3240 Module 4: Application Paper: Legitimate Authority and the Followers Who Grant It
- LDR 3240 Module 5: Final Paper: Challenging the Status Quo as a Leader Who Learns From the Past
- MAN 3760 Module 7: Final Project: Leadership Communication at Boeing and the 737 MAX
- PSY 3600 Module 6: Written Assignment: Algorithms, Self-Managing Crews and the Future of a Moving Company
- LDR 3050 Module 2: Reflection Paper: Which Leadership Style Do I Actually Use?
- LDR 4220 Module 4: Case Study: Carlos Ghosn at Nissan and the Global Leader's Mindset
LDR 3240 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free LDR 3240 Module 3 sample paper?
Machiavelli's realism and Burns's transforming leadership, tested on a paratransit manager's decision, form the application paper above.
What did Machiavelli advise about being feared or loved?
That it is safer to be feared than loved if a ruler cannot be both, while avoiding being hated.
What is transforming leadership?
Burns's term for leadership that raises leaders and followers to higher levels of motivation and morality.
How does transforming leadership differ from transactional leadership?
Transactional leadership exchanges one thing for another; transforming leadership engages followers' higher needs and values.
What is ideal leadership?
A standard for how leaders should lead, which thinkers from Plato to Burns have defined in different ways.