StudyHub

For this assignment, I need a 2000 to 3000 words draft of the final paper. The final paper will be a critical essay of 6000 words which integrates theory and practice. References should follow the Harvard system.
A critical literature review of key theories of the nature and exercise of leadership in organisations (40% of the available marks)
A critical evaluation of the behaviour of selected leaders that you have encountered in the course of your career, in relation to a range of theories of leadership (40% of the available marks) examples of
A summary of the learning you can take from this assignment for your own practice and development as a leader (20% of the available marks)
Book “Leadership in Organizations” by Gary Yukl 8th edition, PG 10
Gary states that “Attempts to organize the literature according to major approaches or perspectives show only partial success. One of the more useful ways to classify leadership theory and research is according to the type of variable that is emphasized the most. Three types of variables that are relevant for understanding leadership effectiveness includes; (1) characteristics of leaders, (2) characteristics of followers, and (3) characteristics of the situation.”
Many scholars have defined the leadership theories as refined and modified according to the trends making the theories completely irrelevant. The relevance here depends on the context that the theories will be applied. The forms of leadership applied in very high degree areas of confidence level, precision, and technical expertise are different from those applied in simple management portfolios. Cultures will influence leadership concepts, situations, new laws, environment, and information overload, making the idea commensurate to leadership’s ever-changing dynamics. The theories of leadership include the following:
A Great Man Theory
According to Baltaci and Balcı (2017), the common leadership traits have had several efforts that have been explored over the past centuries where heroes are needed to define their failures and successes. In 1847, philosopher Thomas Carlyle stated that these heroes’ interests were always based on the histories of those who have worked to achieve certain levels (Leithwood et al., 2020). Carlyle claimed that everyone is born a leader, but it takes certain efforts for those endowed with heroic efforts to become leaders. He argued that great men are born but not made. This theory was further explained by Sidney Hook, an American philosopher who claimed that there are impacts that an eventful man can create. He stated that an eventful man remained more complex than the historical situation but did not determine their courses precisely. He also introduced the idea of an event-making man who influenced the making of the man’s role because of the consequences of a person’s capacity of intelligence, character, and will, instead of their actions of distinction. However, after subsequent events unfolded, these ideas were considered flawed, just like the story of Hitler, therefore, challenging the credibility of this theory (Gary, 2012). These once regarded as great men became irrelevant. This leadership theory, thus, proceeded from the dogma that great leaders are always born or, just as nature could state it that they were destined to at one particular time to rise to the level of becoming a leader.
Trait Theory
Daniëls et al. (2019) believed that people who were born and destined to become leaders had specific physical characteristics and personality traits that differentiated them from other non- leaders. For example, a child at his earlier stage can be identified as a future leader by having certain leadership traits at that young age. They, however, ignored the idea of whether leadership skills were acquired or genetic. Jenkins, one of the theorists, identified two leadership traits as emergent, which included level of intelligence, height self- confidence, and attractiveness. The other trait was effectiveness which included charisma which was a fundamental characteristic of leadership.
On the other hand, Max Webber termed charisma as the world’s most tremendous revolutionary force that was completely capable of producing a new orientation of followers, who have one leader they perceive to be having supernatural, inhuman and superhuman powers and abilities (Daniëls et al. 2019). The initial focus on knowledge, intelligence, personal and physical traits of a person used to distinguish leaders from non-leaders, signals the need to have more research because there were minor differences between a leader and a follower (Thompson et al., 1996). Trait theory was mainly developed because of the failure to detect every leader’s characteristics. Scholars who did their research on military and non- military leaders during the Second World War realized that there are certain leadership traits that a leader develops at certain times in regards to certain conditions.
Situational Theory
Daniëls et al. (2019) stated that no leadership style stood alone and was precise because the style used was dependent on other factors such as the conditions and quality of the followers together with the number of variables. The theory does not give or state ways to lead because the external and internal dimension of the leadership ecosystem requires them to adapt to the situation particularly. In several instances, these leaders changed the environment and the dynamics and employees Daniëls et al. (2019). The situational theory, in simple terms, explains that there are no simple ways of leading an organization because the leadership style that will be operative in one situation will not be applicable in another situation.
Behavior and Style Theory
Thompson et al. (1996) acknowledged the importance of specific leadership skills to a leader who performs their duties by drawing parallel examples from the previous leader’s capacity level. This leader will argue that each individual who has been a leader has the capacity and leadership styles different from others. Other leaders cannot use one similar solution that a leader uses to solve other problems. They will be forced to implement or come up with suitable solutions to these problems. Democratic leaders, according to this theory, are considered the best because employees who have worked under these leaders always display a high level of satisfaction, motivation, and creativity (Thompson et al., 1996). In a democratic organization, the leader always allows all their employees, regardless of their positions to present their views towards solving a problem; unlike other styles of leadership where the only individuals permitted in making decisions are the superior employees, democratic leadership treats every employee equal. These employees always work with great enthusiasm whether the leader is there or not. There were two variables identified in this theory. They are concerned with people’s relationships and commencing structure which is concerned with task behaviors and production.

Expert Help With This Assignment — On Your Terms