Students Are Required To Write A Literature Review 12-14 Pag

Students Are Required To Write A Literature Review 12 14 Pages By An

Students are required to write a literature review (12-14 pages) by analyzing the literature on one of the leadership styles, theories and approaches discussed in this course. A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study. In the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories.

Papers should be a minimum of 12 pages (1-inch margins, 12-point Times New Roman font, double-spaced). It should be well sourced, using professional or academic journals. All sources must be cited using American Psychological Association (APA) style. References must be from professional and academic journals or official webpages of governmental agencies and legitimate organizations. Newspaper articles and other webpages should be used with great care and never as the primary source as the accuracy of the information can be an issue. Wikipedia is not a legitimate reference. Topic: The Great Man Theory

Paper For Above instruction

The Great Man Theory: A Critical Analysis within Leadership Literature

Leadership theories have evolved significantly over time, reflecting changing societal values, organizational needs, and academic perspectives. Among the earliest and most enduring theories is the Great Man Theory, which posits that leadership qualities are inherent and that great leaders are born, not made. This theory, rooted in 19th-century patriarchal and aristocratic views, has historically influenced how leadership was conceptualized and studied. Its prominence has waned in modern scholarship, but its impact remains evident in the development of subsequent leadership paradigms.

The Great Man Theory emerged during the Victorian era when social hierarchies were rigid, and leadership was often associated with aristocratic traits and divine right. The theory suggests that certain individuals possess innate qualities—charisma, intelligence, decisiveness—that predispose them to be leaders (Carlyle, 1841). Thomas Carlyle, one of its key proponents, believed that history was primarily shaped by extraordinary individuals whose personal qualities enabled them to lead. Such traits included moral strength, confidence, and assertiveness, which distinguished these leaders from ordinary individuals. Carlyle's perspective influenced early leadership studies and reinforced the idea of innate traits as essential for leadership success (Bass, 1990).

Despite its historical significance, the Great Man Theory has faced substantial criticism, especially from contemporary scholars. Critics argue that the theory overlooks the complex social and contextual factors influencing leadership (Burns, 1978). It ignores the notion that leadership skills can be developed through experience, education, and practice. Moreover, the theory has a gendered bias, predominantly centering on male figures, which limits its applicability and perpetuates stereotypes about leadership roles. Feminist scholars and modern leadership research emphasize the importance of social, cultural, and situational factors over innate traits (Eagly & Carli, 2007).

In analyzing the literature, it is evident that the Great Man Theory, while historically influential, is limited in scope and has been largely supplanted by contingency and transformational leadership theories. These newer approaches acknowledge the importance of environmental factors, organizational culture, and relational dynamics in leadership processes. For instance, Fiedler’s Contingency Theory emphasizes the interaction between leadership style and situational variables (Fiedler, 1964), highlighting that effective leadership cannot be solely attributed to inherent traits.

Nevertheless, the enduring appeal of the Great Man Theory lies in its simplicity and the romantic notion that exceptional individuals can shape history. It has served as a foundation upon which later theories have built, inspiring research into personality traits, intelligence, and charisma. Contemporary trait theories, such as the Big Five personality model, extend this focus but recognize that traits are not solely innate but can be expressed and nurtured (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Thus, modern leadership development increasingly incorporates insights from trait psychology, moving beyond the static nature of the Great Man perspective.

Critically, the theory’s limitations highlight the importance of adopting more holistic frameworks for understanding leadership. Transformational and servant leadership theories, for example, emphasize the relational, ethical, and contextual dimensions of leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Greenleaf, 1977). These models prioritize the development of followers and emphasize that effective leadership involves interpersonal influence and responsiveness to organizational needs.

In the context of public and nonprofit organizations, as discussed by Wart and Medina (2023), contemporary leadership theories advocate for adaptable, context-sensitive approaches rather than reliance on innate qualities alone. These organizations often operate amidst complex social issues that demand collaborative and transformational leadership styles. While the allure of innate traits persists culturally and historically, the literature underscores that effective leadership in these sectors arises from a combination of personal attributes, learned skills, and situational awareness.

In conclusion, the Great Man Theory holds an important place in the history of leadership thought but is insufficient as a standalone explanation of leadership effectiveness. Its strengths lie in highlighting the significance of personal qualities, yet its shortcomings—such as gender bias, contextual insensitivity, and overemphasis on innate traits—necessitate integration with other models that recognize the dynamic and social nature of leadership. Future research and practice should focus on developing leaders through experiential learning, fostering emotional intelligence, and cultivating relational skills—approaches that move beyond the static archetype of the "great man."

References

• Carlyle, T. (1841). On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic in history. James Fraser.
• Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
• Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 149–190.
• Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.
• McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(1), 81–90.
• Wart, M. V., & Medina, P. S. (2023). Leadership in Public and Nonprofit Organizations: An Introduction (4th ed.). Routledge.
• Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 93–114.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Jacobson, & N. P. Ashkanasy (Eds.), The nature of leadership: New perspectives and applications (pp. 101–124). Sage Publications.