Instructions for the review is in the file titled “Instructions”, the piece of work that the critque should be on is titled “Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?”.
Part of the instructions is here:”Write a critical review of the way in which this method has been applied or how questions of causality or of ethics have been navigated. As part of building this critique, your review can also consider the limitations or shortcomings of relying on a single or given method. Equally, if the source you have chosen uses more than one method (for instance mixed methods, involving summaries of quantitative data as well as interviews), then your review can critique both parts of this.”
The readings that may be used are all titled “reading…”, example essays are also uploaded titeld “example-essay…”
I have also uploaded slides from lectures which can be helpful.
Possible outline that can be used(does not need to follow exactly, just for suggestion):
I. Introduction
A.
Brief overview of Bass’s transactional-transformational leadership paradigm
B.
Thesis statement: Bass provides a robust cross-cultural analysis supporting the
paradigm’s universality, but some limitations arise in his methods and
interpretations.
II. Summary of Bass’s Central Arguments
A.
Three key corollaries Bass derives from the paradigm
B.
Evidence from quantitative studies across cultures/contexts
C.
Qualitative interview/observation methods used initially
III. Critique of the Quantitative Methods
A.
Strengths (e.g. large cross-cultural sample, validated measures like MLQ)
B.
Potential limitations
1. Self-report survey biases
2. Inconsistencies in some findings across contexts
3. Linear methods may miss complexities
IV. Critique of the Qualitative Components
A.
Value of initial interviews for grounding the concepts
B.
Lack of detailed qualitative analysis presented
V. Analysis of Universality Claims
A.
Paradigm concepts transferable but behaviors context-specific
B.
Role of cultural, organizational contingencies
C.
Degree of universality vs acknowledging specificity
VI. Interdisciplinary Implications
A.
Relevance across fields (psychology, management, etc)
B.
Need for mixed methods to capture richness
VII. Conclusion
A.
Summary of main strengths and weaknesses
B.
Future research directions: more qualitative, non-Western contexts,
alternatives?
