servant leadership, authentic leadership, and responsible leadership comparison
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
servant leadership, authentic leadership, and responsible leadership comparison
Instructions
This week you will explain the similarities and/or differences among three emergent theories: servant leadership, authentic leadership, and responsible or ethical leadership. In addition, provide an example of a recent workplace situation you experienced where the outcome was directly related to the leadership theory applied. Then evaluate the outcome and determine whether another leadership theory would have been more appropriate for the situation. Explain your reasoning for recommending the alternative approach.
Write a paper in which you accomplish the following:
- Explain the similarities and/or differences among servant leadership, authentic leadership, and responsible leadership.
- Illustrate a workplace (or school) situation that you experienced where the outcome was directly impacted by the leadership theory applied. Explain which leadership theory (e.g., situational, transformational, transactional, servant, authentic, etc.) was most closely associated with the leader’s behavior. Which other leadership theory would have been more appropriate for the situation? Why?
Support your paper with a minimum of six scholarly resources . In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be included.
Length: 6 pages, not including title and reference pages
Your paper should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards
Mandatory Scholarly Resources Attached in Zip Folder.
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow servant leadership, authentic leadership, and responsible leadership comparison