Leadership Literature Review – Individual Written Assignment Brief

Assessment Type: Individual Written Assignment – Literature Review with Critical Analysis
Word Count: 2,500–3,000 words (excluding reference list and title page)
Weighting: 40% of total course grade
Submission: Via the course Learning Management System (LMS) by the date specified in the unit outline
Citation Style: APA 7th Edition

Assignment Overview

Students will research and write a literature review paper that critically analyses a chosen leadership topic drawn from current academic scholarship. The paper must go beyond description — it must synthesise, evaluate, and position evidence across multiple peer-reviewed sources to construct a well-reasoned analytical argument. The literature review format requires you to identify patterns, tensions, debates, and gaps within the existing body of research on your chosen topic, rather than summarising sources one by one.

This assignment develops competencies in academic research, critical evaluation of theoretical frameworks, and scholarly written communication — skills central to leadership practice in professional, organisational, and community contexts.

Topic Selection

Select ONE topic from the list below. Your entire paper must focus on that single topic. You must not combine topics or shift focus mid-paper.

1. Theories of Leadership

   Review current research on the evolution and applicability of leadership theories. Your paper should trace the development of major leadership theories (e.g., trait, behavioural, contingency, transformational, transactional, and contemporary approaches) and critically evaluate their relevance to modern organisational environments. Identify how theoretical frameworks have shifted over time and what the current scholarly consensus — or disagreement — suggests about effective leadership.

2. Servant Leadership versus Authentic Leadership

   Critique servant leadership and authentic leadership theories, comparing their philosophical foundations, defining characteristics, and evidence of effectiveness. Your paper should evaluate the strengths and limitations of each approach, examine empirical studies testing their outcomes (e.g., employee engagement, organisational performance, ethical behaviour), and take a reasoned analytical position on the relative merit and practical applicability of each.

3. Followership

   Explore the concept of followership and its impact on leadership practice. Your paper should examine how followership has been theorised and researched as a distinct concept, analyse the relationship between follower behaviour and leadership outcomes, and critically assess how followership reframes traditional leader-centric models. Consider the implications for organisations seeking to develop both leaders and engaged, proactive followers.

4. Distributed Leadership versus Shared Leadership

   Explore the origins and key concepts of distributed and shared leadership. Your paper should examine how these two forms of leadership are defined, distinguished, and theorised in the literature, analyse their respective emergence from different disciplinary traditions (education and organisational behaviour), and critically evaluate the evidence supporting their effectiveness in contemporary workplace and educational settings.

Task Description and Requirements

Your literature review paper must meet the following requirements:

• Introduction (approx. 250–300 words): Introduce your chosen topic, state the purpose and scope of the review, and provide a clear thesis statement or analytical focus that signals the argument or position your paper will develop.
• Body – Literature Review with Critical Analysis (approx. 1,800–2,200 words): Synthesise a minimum of eight (8) peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2015 and 2026. Organise the review thematically or conceptually — not source by source. Identify key themes, theoretical agreements, debates, contradictions, and gaps in the literature. Critically evaluate the quality, methodology, and relevance of the studies you cite. Do not merely describe what each source says; your voice and analytical judgement must be present throughout.
• Conclusion (approx. 300–400 words): Summarise the key findings from your analysis, reflect on the state of the research field, and identify implications for leadership practice or future research directions.
• Reference List: APA 7th Edition format. A minimum of eight (8) peer-reviewed sources are required. Additional credible sources (book chapters, policy documents, reputable industry reports) may be included but do not substitute for the peer-reviewed minimum.

Formatting Requirements

• Font: Times New Roman or Arial, 12pt
• Line spacing: Double-spaced throughout
• Margins: 2.54 cm (1 inch) on all sides
• Title page: Include your name, student ID, course name, unit code, and submission date
• Page numbers: Required, bottom-right of each page
• File format: Microsoft Word (.docx) or PDF

Assessment Criteria and Marking Rubric

This assignment is marked out of 100 and converted to the 40% weighting. The following criteria and descriptors apply:

1. Critical Analysis and Depth of Argument (30 marks)

• High Distinction (85–100%): Demonstrates sophisticated, independent critical analysis. Constructs a coherent, well-supported argument that evaluates competing perspectives, identifies tensions in the literature, and draws insightful conclusions. Goes well beyond description.
• Distinction (75–84%): Clear and consistent critical analysis. Evaluates sources rather than summarising them. Argument is logical and supported by evidence, with minor gaps in depth or nuance.
• Credit (65–74%): Some critical analysis present, but the paper occasionally reverts to description. Argument is mostly coherent with reasonable use of evidence.
• Pass (50–64%): Limited critical analysis. Predominantly descriptive. Argument is underdeveloped or inconsistently maintained.
• Fail (Below 50%): Little to no critical analysis. Paper is primarily a summary of sources. No coherent argument constructed.

2. Synthesis and Use of Literature (25 marks)

• High Distinction: Literature is expertly synthesised across themes and concepts. Sources are integrated fluently and used to build the analysis. Minimum source requirement exceeded with high-quality, current, peer-reviewed material.
• Distinction: Good synthesis across most of the paper. Sources are integrated and organised thematically. Meets or exceeds the minimum source requirement.
• Credit: Adequate synthesis with some thematic organisation. Some source-by-source structure present. Meets the minimum requirement.
• Pass: Minimal synthesis. Sources are largely listed or summarised one at a time. Minimum requirement met.
• Fail: No synthesis evident. Sources are treated independently or minimum requirement is not met.

3. Structure, Coherence, and Academic Writing (20 marks)

• High Distinction: Excellent structure. Introduction, body, and conclusion are clearly delineated and logically sequenced. Writing is precise, academic, and fluent throughout. Thesis is clearly established and sustained.
• Distinction: Sound structure and clear academic writing. Minor lapses in coherence or flow. Thesis is present and maintained.
• Credit: Acceptable structure with some inconsistency. Writing is generally clear but may include colloquial or imprecise language. Thesis is present but not always sustained.
• Pass: Basic structure present but poorly executed. Writing is unclear or inconsistent in places. Thesis is weak or underdeveloped.
• Fail: Structure is absent or incoherent. Writing does not meet academic standards. No discernible thesis.

4. Engagement with Topic Scope and Task Requirements (15 marks)

• High Distinction: Fully addresses the selected topic with precise focus. All task requirements met and often exceeded. Word count is within range. Topic is not mixed with another.
• Distinction: Topic is addressed with sufficient focus. All requirements met. Minor deviations from scope.
• Credit: Topic is generally addressed but focus drifts at points. Most requirements met.
• Pass: Topic addressed at a surface level. Some requirements not fully met.
• Fail: Topic not addressed or requirements substantially unmet.

5. Referencing and Academic Integrity (10 marks)

• High Distinction: APA 7th Edition applied accurately and consistently throughout in-text and reference list. All sources are credible, peer-reviewed, and properly cited. No referencing errors.
• Distinction: APA applied correctly with minor errors. Sources are appropriate and credible.
• Credit: APA used with some errors. Sources are mostly appropriate.
• Pass: Referencing is inconsistent or contains frequent errors. Sources are of variable quality.
• Fail: Referencing is absent or severely incorrect. Sources are inappropriate or not cited.

Academic Integrity

All submitted work must be your own. The use of AI writing tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Grammarly’s generative features) to produce assignment content is not permitted unless explicitly authorised by the unit coordinator. Any suspected breach of academic integrity will be referred to the university’s academic misconduct procedures in accordance with institutional policy. Ensure all sources are properly cited and that your paper does not contain unattributed paraphrasing or direct quotation without citation.

Submission Instructions

• Submit via the designated assignment submission portal on the LMS.
• Your file must be named: StudentID_LastName_LeadershipLitReview
• Late submissions will incur a penalty of 10% of the total available marks per day unless an approved extension has been granted prior to the due date.
• Extension requests must be submitted through the formal extension request process at least 48 hours before the due date.

Sample Answer Pool – Leadership Literature Review

A literature review on leadership theories reveals a discipline in transition: early trait and behavioural models have given way to relational and context-sensitive frameworks that better reflect the complexity of contemporary organisations. The evolution from “great man” assumptions toward distributed, servant, and authentic leadership models reflects both methodological maturity in the field and a broader cultural shift in how authority and influence are conceptualised. For instance, Dinh et al. (2014), in their systematic review of leadership theory published in The Leadership Quarterly, identified over 66 distinct leadership constructs in the literature, pointing to both theoretical richness and a critical need for integrative frameworks. Servant leadership, in particular, has attracted substantial empirical attention for its positive associations with follower psychological safety, organisational citizenship behaviour, and ethical climate outcomes. The distinctions between distributed and shared leadership — though often conflated in popular management writing — carry meaningful theoretical weight, with distributed leadership emerging largely from educational administration and shared leadership from organisational psychology and team research.

The scholarship on followership adds a corrective lens to leader-centric models that have long dominated organisational research. Uhl-Bien et al. (2014) argued that leadership is a co-constructed process, and that follower agency, identity, and behaviour shape leadership outcomes as much as leader conduct does — a position now supported by a growing body of empirical work in diverse organisational settings. Data from Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace report (2023) reinforces the practical stakes: organisations with highly engaged employees — those whose followership is active rather than passive — report 23% higher profitability and significantly lower turnover, connecting theoretical arguments about relational leadership directly to measurable performance outcomes. Authentic leadership theory, grounded in positive psychology, has demonstrated associations with reduced burnout and increased follower trust in healthcare, education, and technology sectors, though critics note that authenticity itself is culturally variable and may not translate uniformly across geographies or organisational cultures. Students approaching this topic through rigorous literature synthesis will find both strong empirical foundations and important unresolved debates — precisely the terrain a well-executed literature review is designed to map.

Write a 2,500–3,000-word literature review critically analysing one leadership topic — theories of leadership, servant vs authentic leadership, followership, or distributed vs shared leadership — using a minimum of eight peer-reviewed sources in APA 7th Edition. Leadership literature review assignment brief: choose one research topic, synthesise peer-reviewed literature, and submit a structured critical analysis paper — complete with rubric, marking criteria, and sample content.

 References

The following peer-reviewed sources are directly relevant to the assignment topics and are published between 2018 and 2026. Verify each via your institutional library database or the provided DOI links.

1. Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2014). Authentic leadership theory, research and practice: Steps taken and steps that remain. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 331–356). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199755615.013.015
2. Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004
3. Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007
4. Spillane, J. P. (2012). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass. [See updated discussions in: Spillane, J. P., & Zuberi, A. (2019). Designing and piloting a leadership daily practice log: Using logs to study the practice of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 375–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X09334308]
5. Pearce, C. L., Wassenaar, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2014). Is shared leadership the key to responsible leadership? Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2014.0017
6. Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 634–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006