Leader/Context Interaction And Theory Applicability

Leadership theories often examine the interaction between the leader and the situation or context. In this assignment, you will identify and contrast two leadership theories with regard to their treatment of the interaction between the leader and the situation or context and evaluate the applicability of the theories to a variety of situations.

General Requirements:

Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
This assignment requires that at least two additional scholarly research sources related to this topic, and at least one in-text citation from each source be included.
Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.
Refer to Chapters 2-4 of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.) for specific guidelines related to doctoral level writing. These chapters contain essential information on manuscript structure and content, clear and concise writing, and academic grammar and usage.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.

Directions:

In a paper of 1,000-1,250 words, contrast two leadership theories with regard to their treatment of the interaction between the leader and the situation or context and evaluate the applicability of the theories to a variety of situations. Include the following in your paper:

A brief overview of each theory. Identify the theory and state its main components.
A clear, research-supported contrast of the two theories with regard to their treatment of the interaction between the leader and the situation or context.
An evaluation of the applicability of the theories given the contrast you described. Is one or the other more applicable to a variety of situations? Why or why not?

Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code	Class Code	Assignment Title	Total Points
PSY-837	PSY-837-O500	Leader/Context Interaction and Theory Applicability	190.0
Criteria	Percentage	Unsatisfactory (0.00%)	Less Than Satisfactory (73.00%)	Satisfactory (82.00%)	Good (91.00%)	Excellent (100.00%)	Comments	Points Earned
Content	80.0%
Overview of Each Theory	20.0%	An overview of each theory is either missing or not evident to the reader.	An overview of each theory is present, but incomplete or inaccurate.	An overview of each theory is presented, but is cursory and lacking in depth. The research cited in the analysis is outdated.	An overview of each theory is thoroughly presented and includes a discussion of all necessary elements. Some research cited in the analysis is outdated.	Av overview each theory is thoroughly presented with rich detail and includes a discussion of all necessary elements. The overview is firmly grounded in current and/or seminal research.
Research-Supported Contrast of the Two Theories	25.0%	A research-supported contrast of the two theories is either missing or not evident to the reader.	A research-supported contrast of the two theories is present, but incomplete or inaccurate.	A research-supported contrast of the two theories is present, but cursory. The research used for support is outdated.	A research-supported contrast of the two theories is present and thorough. It is moderately well supported though some sources of support are outdated.	A research-supported contrast of the two theories is present, thorough, and well-detailed. It is well supported with current and/or seminal research.
Evaluation of the Applicability of The Theories	25.0%	An evaluation of the applicability of the theories is either missing or not evident to the reader.	An evaluation of the applicability of the theories is present, but incomplete or illogical.	An evaluation of the applicability of the theories is present, but cursory. The research used for support is outdated.	An evaluation of the applicability of the theories is present and thorough. The evaluation is moderately well supported though some sources of support are outdated.	An evaluation of the applicability of the theories is present, thorough, and well-detailed. The evaluation is well supported with current and/or seminal research.
Synthesis and Argument	10.0%	No synthesis of source information is evident. Statement of purpose is not followed to a justifiable conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses non-credible sources.	Synthesis of source information is attempted, but is not successful. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.	Synthesis of source information is present, but pedantic. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.	Synthesis of source information is present and meaningful. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.	Synthesis of source information is present and is scholarly. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Organization and Effectiveness	10.0%
Thesis Development and Purpose	10.0%	Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.	Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.	Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.	Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.	Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis.
Format	10.0%
Mechanics of Writing	5.0%	Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.	Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
APA Format	5.0%	Required format is rarely followed correctly. No reference page is included. No in-text citations are used.	Required format elements are missing or incorrect. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Reference page is present. However, in-text citations are inconsistently used.	Required format is generally correct. However, errors are present (e.g. font, cover page, margins, and in-text citations). Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented though some errors are present.	Required format is used, but minor errors are present (e.g. headings and direct quotes). Reference page is present and includes all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.	The document is correctly formatted. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
Total Weightage	100%

Leader/Context Interaction And Theory Applicability

Rubic_Print_Format

Related posts

Select at least one student to whom you will administer the informal RTI assessment created in Clinical Field Experience A. Score the assessment and share the results with the student to increase understanding of his or her strengths and areas for improvement.

Examples of nonbiased formal and informal specialized diagnostic assessments that are administered to the students being evaluated, including any legal and ethical requirements.