Although both types of leadership hold plenty of similarities, there are also major differences. Napoleon was considered a transformational leader for the fact that he was able to motivate his followers. Napoleon made sure his followers were conscious of the outcomes of all their actions before battle, placed a maximum effort in their daily tasks for the sake of their country, and responded to all their needs. By taking initiative as a transformational leader, Napoleon was empowering his followers and making them less …show more content…
Instead, in search for additional power and territory, his leader mentality began to change, leading him to derailment. It began to become clear that Napoleon was unable to rule on a long-term basis. As he continued to become desperate along with his inflated ego, Napoleon felt as if he needed to be controlling of all undergoing plans, which resulted in failing to delegate tasks and empower his people. By failing to develop others, the army began to disengage and become uncoordinated. In attempt to save his power, he began to set up new organizations and imposed constitutions to fit them. Unfortunately, they did not last longer than a year. His search for total control while taking the roles as an emperor, political leader and military commander led him to his defeat. Napoleon’s poor decisions and stubbornness to seek advice, did not allow him to reconsider his flaws that derailed his leader