Critical Analysis of Leadership Motivation and Leadership Styles Text

This assignment provides a detailed critical analysis of a text that examines the relationship between a leader's motivation and its application within transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership styles. The analysis addresses key research questions, identifies the type of literature, and explores the intellectual project undertaken by the authors, including their methodology, value stance, and impact on research questions. The assignment assesses the authors' claims, their clarity, certainty, and generalizability, as well as the backing and theoretical orientation supporting these claims. It also evaluates the influence of the authors' value stance on their claims and how their work relates to other research. The analysis covers various aspects, including the sources used, the robustness of evidence, and the consistency of claims, providing a comprehensive understanding of the text's strengths and limitations. The analysis underscores the importance of motivation in shaping leadership styles and the implications for practical application within different organizational contexts.

Critical Analysis of a Text
1

Text:
Motivation and Transactional, Charismatic, and Transformational Leadership: A Test of
Antecedents
1. What review question am I asking of this text?
(e.g. what is my research question? why select this text? does the Critical Analysis of this text
fit into my investigation with a wider focus? what is my constructive purpose in undertaking a
Critical Analysis of this text?)
The text focuses upon analysing the relationship between leader’s motivation and using the same in
charismatic, transactional and transformational leadership.
2. What type of literature is this?
(e.g. theoretical, research, practice, policy? are there links with other types of literature?)
The literature used in the paper is quite theoretical. However, it has been appropriately critic by
analysing the views of various other researchers. The text is responsible for discussing various types
of leadership and its direct impact that can be felt by the followers (Clarke, 2013). Various sources
of motivation are also discussed in the workplace. The same has been used by the researchers in
deriving results along with the primary data.
3. What sort of intellectual project for study is being undertaken?
a) How clear is it which project the authors are undertaking? (e.g. knowledge-for-understanding,
knowledge-for-critical evaluation, knowledge-for-action, instrumentalism, reflexive action?)
Based upon the type of research, the researcher has conducted, there are higher chances that the
project is conducted as per the rules of knowledge and understanding. However, the same has not
been clearly stated, but analysing the whole project can help in ascertaining the same (Aydin, Sarier
and Uysal, 2013).
b) How is the project reflected in the authors’ mode of working? (e.g. a social science or a
practical orientation? choice of methodology and methods? an interest in understanding or in
improving practice?)
2

The author’s mode of working is quite practical as primary type of data collection is used along with
secondary one. It shows that the data collected from the viewpoint of other researcher is then cross
checked by organizing the analysis of first hand data collected in quantitative mode.
c) What value stance is adopted towards the practice or policy investigated? (e.g. relatively
impartial, critical, positive, unclear? what assumptions are made about the possibility of
improvement? whose practice or policy is the focus of interest?)
Critical yet positive attitude is adopted by the researcher where viewpoint of various authors have
been collected so that all the opinions can be collected so as to form an ultimate one. Hence, based
on primary and secondary data, the researcher has also been able to recommend certain changes in
the form of various leadership styles and their core sources of motivation (Goleman, 2017).
d) How does the sort of project being undertaken affect the research questions addressed? (e.g.
investigating what happens? what is wrong? how well does a particular policy or intervention
work in practice?)
The project has been conducted on the hypothesis leader’s instrumental motivation will be
positively related to transactional behaviour. However, critically assessing the same, researcher has
not used other leadership styles for analysis. Hence, the outcome can not be adopted by the other
leadership style due to difference in their behaviour and carrying outcome. As per the results, it can
be adopted at various workplaces based upon the working environment (Du and et.al., 2013).
e) How does the sort of project being undertaken affect the place of theory? (e.g. is the
investigation informed by theory? generating theory? theoretical? developing social science
theory or a practical theory?)
The investigation has helped in analysing the theoretical aspect of motivation and then adapting the
same through practical point of view in the workplaces as well. Hence, the present research has
adequate practical implications.
f) How does the authors’ target audience affect the reporting of research? (e.g. do they assume
academic knowledge of methods? criticize policy? offer recommendations for action?)
3

The target audience could have taken the research as an action adopted for recommendations.
Criticizing policies have also been used to make the understanding regarding subject matter better.
4. What is being claimed?
a) What are the main kinds of knowledge claim that the authors are making? (e.g. theoretical
knowledge, research knowledge, practice knowledge?)
The author will be able to make both theoretical and practical type of knowledge. Since, literature
review is rigorously conducted, it has helped in building theoretical knowledge for the research
(Abualrub and Alghamdi, 2012). However, due to primary type of data is used as well, it has helped
in developing practical implications of the subject matter as well.
b) What is the content of the main claims to knowledge and of the overall argument? (e.g. what,
in a sentence, is being argued? what are the three to five most significant claims that
encompass much of the detail? are there key prescriptions for improving policy or practice?)
The overall argument is based upon the process and sources that are commonly utilised by leaders
for motivation in the working environment. In order to perform this function, the researcher have
got involved in analysing various sources of motivation which are present in the form of extrinsic
and intrinsic format. In the end, the pros and cons of each motivation practice have been developed
by the researchers to give a clear view to overall research (Giltinane, 2013).
c) How clear are the authors’ claims and overall argument? (e.g. stated in an abstract,
introduction or conclusion? unclear?)
The claims of author are quite clear and have been divided based upon introduction, literature
review, research methodology and discussion.
d) With what degree of certainty do the authors make their claims? (e.g. do they indicate
tentativeness? qualify their claims by acknowledging limitations of their evidence?
acknowledge others’ counter-evidence? acknowledge that the situation may have changed
since data collection?)
The degree of certainty is quite high due to first hand data that has been used by the researcher.
4

However, the same could have been more effective if hypothesis could have considered all types of
leadership styles rather than one.
e) How generalized are the authors’ claims – to what range of phenomena are they claimed to
apply? (e.g. the specific context from which the claims were derived? other similar contexts? a
national system? a culture? universal? implicit? unspecified?)
To some extent, the claims are specific enough. However, its application may differ based upon
culture of every company. Hence, it is difficult to generalize it at the large scale.
f) How consistent are the authors’ claims with each other? (e.g. do all claims fit together in
supporting an argument? do any claims contradict each other?)
All the claims are not fitting to the argument being suggested by the researcher is the end. It is due
to opinions of different researcher have been compared and contrasted to each other so as to reach to
a cohesive conclusion and recommendation.
5. To what extent is there backing for claims?
a) How transparent is it what, if any, sources are used to back the claims? (e.g. is there any
statement of the basis for assertions? are sources unspecified?)
There are quite a lot of references that have been used by the researcher while presenting his
arguments. It shows that majority of the responses are accumulated with specific sources. However,
there are certain statements that has been given by the researcher based upon assertions as well
whose source have not been specified (Acar, 2012).
b) What, if any, range of sources is used to back the claims? (e.g. first hand experience? the
authors’ own practice knowledge or research? literature about others’ practice knowledge or
research? literature about reviews of practice knowledge or research? literature about others’
polemic?)
A range of sources have been used, which includes, first hand data collected from the respondents,
opinions of authors in the form of literature review and certain assertions have also been made to
back the knowledge being collected for which sources have not been used.
5

c) If claims are at least partly based on the authors’ own research, how robust is the evidence?
(e.g. is the range of sources adequate? are there methodological limitations or flaws in the
methods employed? do they include cross-checking or ‘triangulation’ of accounts? what is the
sample size and is it large enough to support the claims being made? is there an adequately
detailed account of data collection and analysis? is a summary given of all data reported?)
There are certain limitations in the methodology where sample of just 186 leaders have been
collected. It is quite difficult to produce a specific viewpoint based upon such a small sample.
Moreover, the sample has been drawn based upon leaders working in industries governmental
agencies, educational setting in rural and non rural area (Lian and Tui, 2012). It has made the
overall result deviated since variety of respondents have been used. Use of specific area leaders
could have given more specific results.
d) Are sources of backing for claims consistent with degree of certainty and the degree of
generalization? (e.g. is there sufficient evidence to support claims made with a high degree of
certainty? is there sufficient evidence from other contexts to support claims entailing extensive
generalization?)
The degree of generalization is quite less due to ineffective sample being used by the researcher to
conduct the research.
6. How adequate is any theoretical orientation to back claims?
a) How explicit are the authors about any theoretical orientation or conceptual framework? (e.g.
is there a conceptual framework guiding data collection? is a conceptual framework selected
after data collection to guide analysis? is there a largely implicit theoretical orientation?)
Conceptual framework has been described by the author in a well-defined manner where guide to
data collection and analysis have been effectively discussed in the research paper. Yes, it can be
stated that the research holds implicit theoretical orientation (De Vries, 2012).
b) What assumptions does any or explicit implicit theoretical orientation make that may affect the
authors’ claims? (e.g. does a perspective focus attention on some aspects and under-emphasize
6

others? if more than one perspective is used, how coherently do the different perspectives
relate to each other?)
Underemphasizing the concept and coherently using the available theoretical resources to reach to
the results.
c) What are the key concepts underpinning any explicit or implicit theoretical orientation? (e.g.
are they listed? are they stipulatively defined? are concepts mutually compatible? is use of
concepts consistent? is the use of concepts congruent with others’ use of the same concepts?)
The use of concepts is consistent where the list has stipulate defined in a specific manner.
7. To what extent does any value stance adopted affect claims?
a) How explicit are the authors about any value stance connected with the phenomena? (e.g. a
relatively impartial, critical, or positive stance? is this stance informed by a particular
ideology? is it adopted before or after data collection?)
A positive stance has been developed by the authors as they can very well connect to the
phenomenon of leadership. However, the same has not been used in data collection due to single
hypothesis being formed for analysis purposes (Pierro and et.al., 2013).
b) How may any explicit or implicit value stance adopted by the authors affect their claims? (e.g.
have they pre-judged the phenomena discussed? are they biased? is it legitimate for the authors
to adopt their particular value stance? have they over-emphasized some aspects of the
phenomenon while under-emphasizing others?)
The claims are biased and pre-judged to some extent. Only those researches have been taken by the
researcher which are have suitability to the desired results. The research under emphasizes on
location and culture of organization in which leadership is to be attempted and common results
irrespective to location has been given by the author of present research paper.
8. To what extent are claims supported or challenged by others’ work?
7

a) Do the authors relate their claims to others’ work? (e.g. do the authors refer to others’
published evidence, theoretical orientations or value stances to support their claims? do they
acknowledge others’ counter-evidence?)
Yes, the author has referred to the readings of other publishers as well son as to make the
understanding related to the subject matter concrete.
b) If the authors use evidence from others’ work to support their claims, how robust is it? (e.g. as
for 5c)
Robust analysis has been made based upon claims being mentioned in various researchers. It has
played an important role in drawing out the results as well.
c) Is there any evidence from others’ work that challenges the authors’ claims, and if so, how
robust is it? (e.g. is there relevant research or practice literature? check any as for 5c)
Evidences from one research is compared to the other from another author to make the analysis
effective and opinionative as well. It also helps in making the literature effective.
9. To what extent are claims consistent with my experience?
The claim is consistent to some extent. However, the same could have been effective if sector,
culture and location wise differentiation could have been made by the researcher for some specific
kind of research.
10. What is my summary evaluation of the text in relation to my review question or issue?
a) How convincing are the authors’ claims, and why?
The author’s claims are convincing to some extent as both primary and secondary both types of data
collected has been used by the researcher in order to reach to the conclusion. It helps in ensuring
that right kind of process is used to reach to the results (Nanjundeswaraswamy and Swamy, 2014).
The research regarding leadership style is able to analyse various aspects based on which better
decisions can be framed by the organization.
8

b) How, if at all, could the authors have provided stronger backing for their claims?
The stronger backing with the help of better drawing of chosen sample and type of research it is
conducting based upon leadership style. Moreover, better use of collected secondary data could
have been able to give specific results based on subject matter.
9