Reference no: EM131941500 , Length: word count : 1250

The next step in your exploration of leadership is to analyze the entries in your analytical framework to identify differences, similarities, sequencing and gaps (areas none of the models address) among the three leadership models you chose for your Week 2 assignment. After performing a critical analysis, you will also critically evaluate the application of each theory to a current leadership scenario based upon your personal/professional experience.

Evaluation involves using a set of criteria and your own critical thinking to reach evaluative conclusions. In evaluating leadership models, you might use a set of theoretical criteria (such as criteria for effective communication, or characteristics of a multi-generational work force), or you might use as criteria who will use the model, why they would use the model, and what the intended outcomes might be. Or you might choose another set of criteria.

Write a 1,250- to 1750-word paper describing your critical analysis and evaluation of the application of each different leadership model to the same leadership scenario. Make sure to support your assertions with Week 1-3 readings and additional literature obtained from University Library resources.

Complete the following in your paper:

Using your framework, describe the differences, similarities, sequencing and gaps (areas none of the models address) among the theories you have chosen from Wren (analysis).

Identify and briefly describe a current leadership scenario from your daily experiences. (evaluation)

Considering that scenario, identify a set of criteria you will use in your evaluation. (evaluation)

Evaluate the extent to which each theory meets the criteria you have chosen. (evaluation)

Describe your final conclusions (summary statements) from your critical evaluation. (evaluation)

Relate your conclusions to your personal leadership practices (i.e. which of your leadership practices do/do not align with the conclusions you drew?)

Include your analytical framework as an appendix.

Use unbiased language to avoid the perpetuation or reinforcement of stereotypes.

Use a minimum of six references to support your analysis and the criteria, assumptions, and context of your evaluation. References should be peer-reviewed articles, journals, and scholarly literature located in the University Library.

Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.

SAS: CRITICAL THINKING

What Is Critical Thinking?

In the SAS doctoral program, you will have the opportunity to develop and extend your critical thinking skills. You will be encouraged to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize as an integral aspect of your thinking. These thinking operations might be applied to analyzing the literature, developing questions, solving a problem, creating a new model, or deciding upon a course of action.

Richard Paul and Linda Elder (2009), two long-standing and respected scholars of critical thinking, crafted the following definition: Critical thinking is the act of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it (p. 4).

Paul and Elder (2009) also suggest that critical thinking entails a commitment to overcoming our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

Other recent views of critical thinking critique the overemphasis on the cognitive dimension of critical thinking (sometimes referred to as the Cartesian duality of "I think, therefore I am"). Researchers such as Klein (1999) remind us of the role of intuition; neuroscientists using new scanning techniques help us understand the role of emotions and the complex interactions of our mind and body.

In SAS we endeavor to introduce you to the latest models of how we can develop higher-order thinking and adult development. There are many ways of knowing that can lead to synthesis. For example, we will be developing your capacity for creating new ideas and original insights by encouraging you to use synthesis or discovery-based thinking.

Traditional views of critical thinking

Contemporary views of critical thinking

Emphasis on cognition alone - I think; therefore I amInteraction of cognition, emotion, spirit and the body especially use of visual representations, and other non sentential forms of reasoning (Thagard & Shelley, 1997).

Reification of rationality, objectivityAcknowledging the role of intuition and collaboration in design/abductive thinking (Dunne & Martin, 2006); disciplined imagination or reflexivity (Weick, 1989; Weick, 1999).

Emphasis on validation, universal competenciesDiscovery practices as used by theoreticians (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2009). Remaining sensitive to uncertainty, doubt, surprise (Locke, Golden-Biddle, & Feldman, 2008) to stimulate original thinking.Emphasis on deductive logic Acceptance and inclusion of inductive & abductive logic.

Critical Analysis

Critical analysis is one of the first steps in learning to read and write in a scholarly manner. Critical analysis involves the following:

Taking apart, locating and examining the components, comparing and contrasting, investigating, sequencing, differentiating, distinguishing, gathering, and assessing diverse and sometimes contradictory information.

Finding the evidence to support assertions.

Questioning assumptions and recording problems.

Illustrating claims with concrete examples and descriptions of the social context in which they occurred.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation is the next step in learning to read and write in a scholarly manner. Critical evaluation involves applying a specific lens or criteria to reach reasoned judgments and articulate clear claims based on credible evidence. Critical evaluation is shaped by the topic, the audience, and the lens. For example, in reading research, one can evaluate the methodology, the approach, assumptions, and other core elements of the research design.

Critically evaluation involves the following:

Evaluating all inferences.

Evaluating diverse, and sometimes contradictory, perspectives, theories, and assumptions.

Formulating well-reasoned conclusions and solutions.

Testing conclusions against relevant criteria, assumptions, and standards.

Critical Synthesis

Critical synthesis uses metacognition to place the focus of prior analytical and evaluative work into a coherent whole that incorporates one's original insights and contributions. Critical synthesis involves creating vital research questions and problems for the future.
Recognizing and/ or co-constructing original patterns.

Applying insights across boundaries from multiple disciplines (Boyer, 1992, p. 89).

Thinking open-mindedly within alternative systems of thoughts, and recognizing and assessing assumptions.

Taking the 100,000-foot view to see the whole from a new perspective to create new questions and perspectives.

Using discovery practices, such as disciplined imagination, intuition, informed voice, and embodiment, to develop innovative ideas, designs, theories, or solutions.

Engaging in reflexive inquiry to generate consciousness raising (Freire, 2000, p. 87).

Note. There may be some overlap between critical analysis, critical evaluation,and critical synthesis. Critical thinking does not necessarily happen in a linear fashion; one may develop original insights and ideas during critical analysis and critical evaluation. However, this model is designed to help students see the value in continuing to build upon their work, question their assertions, and elevate their critical thinking.