The next step in scholarly reading and writing is critical evaluation, which is to apply a specific lens, context, or criteria to reach reasoned judgments and articulate clear claims based on credible evidence. Evaluation is shaped by the topic, the audience, and the lens.

In reading about leadership, you can evaluate recommended leadership models in terms of their application to specific contexts and goals. Evaluation is a combination of drawing on available elements and using critical thinking to reach conclusions. In evaluating leadership, you might look at who will use the model, why they would use the model, and what the goals might be. After evaluation, synthesis can be developed, which will be displayed in your Week 7 presentation.

*Write a 1,050- to 1,400-word paper critically evaluating contemporary views of leadership based on the analytical matrix you completed in Weeks 5*

Include the following in your paper:

Review the commonalities and disparities of three contemporary views of leadership based on your critical analysis.

Select a specific context or criterion to evaluate contemporary leadership theories or views, including alternative and conflicting perspectives.

Describe the conclusions you drew from the critical evaluation, using well-reasoned judgments.

Use references to support the criteria, assumptions, or context of your evaluation.

Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.

Please provide Original, Plagiarism Free work….Please understand this is a Doctoral Level Assignment…and no corners can be cut…Please follow the Assignment’s Grading Rubric in exact detail..*

---

Attachments

Click here to place an order  for a similar  paper  and have exceptional work done by our team and get A+results

Essay Competency		1	2	3	4	Score
Critical Thinking 60% of total	Critical Analysis	Essay contains a summary of information but does not contain any of the following operations: takes apart, examines the components, investigates, and compares and contrasts.	Essay includes diverse, and sometimes contradictory information and one or more of the following operations: takes apart, examines the components, investigates, and compares and contrasts.	Essay includes diverse, and sometimes contradictory information and two or more of the following operations: takes apart,  examines the components, investigates, and compares and contrasts.	Essay includes diverse and sometimes contradictory perspectives and all of the following operations: takes apart,  examines the components, investigates, and compares and contrasts.	0
	Critical Evaluation	Writer fails to adequately evaluate the paper topic. Conclusion are poorly stated, tested against assumptions, and supported with evidence from the literature. Alternate perspectvives are not acknowledged in the evaluation.	Writer vaguely evaluates  the paper topic.  Conclusions are vaguely stated, tested against assumptions, and supported with reasoned judgment and evidence from the literature. Few alternate perspectives are acknowledged.	Writer is proficient in evaluating the paper topic.  Conclusions are mostly clearly stated, tested against assumptions, and supported with reasoned judgment and evidence from the literature. Some alternate perspectives are acknowledged.	Writer is highly proficient in evaluating the paper topic. Conclusions are clearly stated, tested against assumptions, and supported with reasoned judgment and evidence from the literature. Alternate perspectives are acknowledged in the evaluation.	0
Writing Competence 25% of total	Mechanics	Writer makes frequent grammatical, spelling, or typographical errors	Writer makes several grammatical, spelling, or typographical errors	Writer makes few grammatical, spelling, or typographical  errors	Writer avoids grammatical, spelling, and/or typographical errors.	0
	Comprehension	Writer is difficult to understand.	Writer is often unclear.	Writer is mostly clear and concise.	Writer is clear and concise	0
	Logical Flow	Writer continually strays from the topic	Writer presents an illogical flow of ideas.	Writer mostly presents a logical flow of ideas.	Writer presents a logical flow of ideas	0
	Content	Writer does not present a consistent or clear message	Writer often strays from the topic by abruptly moving from one idea to the next.	Writer stays mostly on topic, without jumping from one idea to the next.	Writer stays on topic, without jumping from one idea to the next.	0
	Scholarly Tone	Writer fails to demonstrate scholarly tone.	Writer presents frequent lapses in scholarly tone	Writer mostly demonstrates scholarly tone.	Writer demonstrates scholarly tone.	0
Use of Sources and APA Style/Format 15% of total	Use of Sources	Writer does not use any sources to support assertions.	Writer includes source material that does not lend meaningful support for ideas.	Writer uses citations and references somewhat haphazardly to support assertions.	Writer uses citations and references to support assertions.	0
	Builds off Literature	Writer distorts the meaning of the source material and misrepresents the source.	Writer frequently distorts the meaning of source material and/or misrepresents the source (cites the wrong source, misspells the author’s name, etc.).	Writer mostly represents source material accurately.	Writer accurately represents source material.	0
	Quoting and paraphrasing	Writer uses direct quotes excessively.	Writer frequently uses direct quotes.	Writer mostly paraphrases sources, but occasionally overuses direct quotes.	Writer paraphrases sources and minimizes direct quoting.	0
	APA Style and Format	Writer uses APA style and format intermittently and/or infrequently.	Writer demonstrates significant errors in APA style and format.	Writer demonstrates minor errors in APA style and format.	Writer correctly demonstrates APA style and format.	0

 

 

Analytical Matrix: ContemporaryViews of Leadership

ContemporaryViews of Leadership

This analytical matrix appraises the contemporary views of leadership based on the leadership models developed by J, MacGregor, J. Burns, J. Crossman, J. Peltason, D. Nadler, M. Tushman, C. Lakshman, J. Kendrick, J. Kotter, and J.T. Wren.

 

Commonalities	Disparities
The contemporary views highly involve collaborative approach that seek to empower the employees along side the leaders. (David, et al, 1990; Burns, et al 1996; Kedrick, 2011).	Most recently, environmental leadership has become the main call for organizational leaders to embrace to conserve the natural resources from degredation. Some leaders do not believe that environmental degredation is real while others pro-actively champion for environmental conservation in their leadership (Crossman, 2010; Kedrick, 2011).
Unlike the historical views of leadership which rated performance and evaluated feedback either annually or semi-annually; the modern leadership views sees the organization members as more equal and therefore they interact and report more frequently as well as improve their performances more often. (David, et al, 1990; Lakshman, 2007)	Some leaders in the modern view believe that knowledge management is a key component in the organization’s success while others purely believe in new inventions to carry forward the organization’s success (Lackshman, 2007; David, et al, 1996).
The contemporary views of leadership have greatly blurred the lines between the employee, and the employer; and bottom-top approaches are embeded in the view and any autocracy is contempted. (Kedrick, 2011; David, et al, 1990; Wren, 1995 )	While some leaders would choose to utilize one of the theories to actualize their organizational success; some leaders in the contemporary views use more than one leadership theory to optimize their success (Kedrick, 2011; Lacshman, 2007).
The modern views incorporate the team building aspects and power sharing that departs from the traditional hierarchical structures. The solutions to the organization’s problems are brainstormed in a collective manner.  (Crossman, 2010; Burns, et al, 1996; Kedrick, 2011)	While some modern leadership theories focus on the human resource to be the main agents of organizational change and success; some theories focus on non-human aspects of the organization such as information to be the main drivers of organizational success (Burns, et al, 1996; Kotter 1999; Wren, 1995; Crossman, 2010).

 

References

 

Burns, J. M., & Peltason, J. W. (1966). Government by the people; the dynamics of American National, State, and local government (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Crossman, J. (2010). Conceptualizing spiritual leadership in secular organizational contexts and its relation to transformational, servant and environmental leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(7), p. 596-608

Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Beyond a Charismatic Leader; Leadership and Organization Change. Carlifornia Management Review. p. 21

Kendrick, J. (2011). Transformational leadership chaning individuals & social systems. Professional Safety, 56(11), p. 14.

Kotter, J. P. (1999). John P. Kotter on what leaders really do. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Lakshman, C. (2007). Organizational knowledge leadership: A grounded theory approach. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(1), p. 51-75.

Wren, J. T. (1995). The leader’s companion: insights on leadership through the ages. New York: Free Press.

Click here to place an order  for a similar  paper  and have exceptional work done by our team and get A+results