Why is it a worthy effort to examine and synthesize research on a leadership quality that may have a positive impact on organizational communication?
Why is it a worthy effort to examine and synthesize research on a leadership quality that may have a positive impact on organizational communication?
Before you begin, here’s some help with defining the general expectations for a Literature Review.
WHAT IS A LITERATURE REVIEW?
A literature review is a broad-ranging, critical examination of the literature (research) on a particular topic, (in this case related to leadership qualities that enhance communication). The goal is to:
(1) identify and summarize key literature that informs a topic and
(2) to critically evaluate the literature to gain current knowledge that will inform the topic.
(3) draw conclusions and make recommendations for improving or furthering the field related to the identified topic.
A complete literature review will include the following:
- Identify the topic (i.e., One leadership quality that may enhance organizational communication)
- Identify and summarize what the literature indicates are the key assertions and concepts related to your topic.
- Identify emerging themes of agreement and disagreement found in the literature related to your topic.
- Identify gaps, problematic areas, or controversial areas in the literature related to your topic/problem.
- Synthesize literature and draw conclusions that inform recommendations/implications.
While it might feel like this is a research paper, it is not. A research paper describes and summarizes research only. A literature review requires this, but also requires that you critically examine, synthesize, and draw new conclusions that can be uniquely applied to your chosen topic.
Now, here is information specific to the requirements of this course’s Literature Review.
ASSIGNMENT OVERVIEW
Strong leadership qualities are essential components of healthy organizational communication efforts. In this literature review, students will examine and synthesize the research on any one leadership quality of their choosing that may positively impact or enhance healthy organizational communication. This paper will require students to examine a leadership quality that is, likely, transformational in nature. Some examples may include qualities such as high emotional intelligence, transparency, honesty, integrity, internal locus of control, engagement, or many many more. Once students have selected the quality they want to examine deeper, they will synthesize pertinent research on that quality and make key assertions about how the quality may positively impact organizational communication.
In addition to the examination and synthesis research, students will also identify emerging themes, research gaps, recommendations, and ethical/faith considerations.
The rationale for this examination is that it behooves us and our organizations to consider how transformational leadership qualities may enhance healthy organizational communication. In turn, we learn that not only is it valuable to improve our practical communication efforts, but it is also wise to develop ourselves as people and leaders in our striving to be better communicators.
FORMAT OF THE PAPER (the following headings are REQUIRED for this paper)
- TOPIC INTRODUCTION: Identify the topic – in other words, identify the purpose or the “why” for this investigation. Why is it a worthy effort to examine and synthesize research on a leadership quality that may have a positive impact on organizational communication?
- LITERATURE REVIEW: Identify and summarize key scholarly literature on the topic (should include 7-10 sources.) Identify and describe what literature says about this topic? What do we know about this transformational leadership quality? In what ways does literature demonstrate the value of this quality and how it may positively impact communication methods. Literature may not always explicitly link your chosen quality with communication outcomes. Therefore, you may have to draw some educated conclusions based on your research in order to link these concepts together.
- KEY EMERGING THEMES: Identify key emerging themes of agreement found in the research. What themes did you discover as you researched? For example, are there other leadership qualities that commonly co-occur with the quality you selected for this paper? Is your chosen quality commonly associated with other outcomes?
- RESEARCH GAPS: Identify research gaps, areas of contradiction, inconsistency, or lacking in the research. This section should be an overall evaluation of the gaps in research. This is not intended as an area to outline specific limitations of each article. Rather, think globally about your research topic and what is missing in this area? For example, where does more research need to be done to help our collective understanding of how leadership qualities may enhance organizational communication efforts? What are some areas of contradiction that you may have identified? Is the research comprehensive and considerate of diverse populations?
- CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Conclude with a summary of an overall synthesis and conclusions that you’ve drawn. Discuss how you recommend the issues that you identified be addressed as a result of the literature review.
- ETHICAL & FAITH CONSIDERATIONS: Discuss how and to what degree your personal values, ethics, and worldview shape your analysis and conclusions? Do your recommendations naturally align with Christian ethics principles? Why or why not?
WRITING REQUIREMENTS & APA
- Scholarly source requirement: Seven to ten scholarly sources must be included in the summary of key literature (requirement 2). Research can be conducted in the CBU online library. Scholarly sources are found by using the databases available at this link (https://calbaptist.edu/library/).
- Proper Academic Writing Mechanics: Submission should be in essay form, strictly adhering to academic writing requirements and proper mechanics (structure, organization/sequence, spelling, grammar, punctuation, syntax etc.). Please use the CBU writing resources offered through the university for editing assistance.
- APA Format requirements: Proper APA format and citation is required, includes the proper use of headings and multiple heading levels which is essential in a literature review. Thorough and accurate management, citing and referencing of sources used is also critically important. Be sure that your research relies only on academically appropriate, scholarly sources.
| Levels of Achievement | |||||
| Criteria | Exemplary (4, A) 90-100% |
Accomplished (3, B) 80-89% | Developing (2, C) 70-79% | Beginning (1, D) 60-69% | Unsatisfactory (0, F) 0-59% |
| Dimension 1: Purpose of the review 5%
Weight 5.00% |
90.00 to 100.00 %
Clear, specific, concise identification of the purpose of the literature review. Clear, specific, insightful description of the need for examination and synthesis of research on this topic and how it directly impacts efforts toward enhancing healthy organizational communication. Critical analysis is exemplary. |
80.00 to 89.00 %
Specific identification of the purpose of the literature review. Specific description of the need for examination and synthesis of research on this topic and how it directly impacts efforts toward enhancing healthy organizational communication. Critical analysis is adequate. |
70.00 to 79.00 %
Non-specific identification of the purpose of the literature review. Unclear description of the need for examination and synthesis of research on this topic and how it directly impacts efforts toward enhancing healthy organizational communication. Critical analysis is developing. |
60.00 to 69.00 %
Limited identification of the purpose of the literature review. Unclear and limited description of the need for examination and synthesis of research on this topic or how it directly impacts efforts toward enhancing healthy organizational communication. Critical analysis is not evident. |
0.00 to 59.00 %
Requirements unmet |
| Dimension 2: Summary of Key Literature 15%
Weight 15.00% |
90.00 to 100.00 %
Thorough summary of 7-10 key scholarly literature that inform the topic. Thoroughly, insightfully summarizes what the literature asserts. Relevance of the sources to inform the problem is clear. |
80.00 to 89.00 %
Summary of 7 key scholarly literature that inform the topic. 1-2 sources may not be scholarly, but still academically appropriate. Thoroughly, summarizes what the literature asserts. Relevance of the source to the problem identified may not be clearly evident for 1-2 sources. |
70.00 to 79.00 %
Summary of 5-7 key literature sources that inform the topic. 3 or more sources may not be scholarly, nor academically appropriate. Summary of what the literature asserts is vague and/or relevance to inform the problem identified is not evident in no more than 1 source. |
60.00 to 69.00 %
Summary of less than 5 key literature sources that inform the topic. 3 or more sources are not scholarly, nor academically appropriate. Summary of what the literature asserts is under-developed or lacking, and/or relevance to inform the problem identified is not evident in 1 or more sources. |
0.00 to 59.00 %
Requirements unmet |
| Dimension 3: Key Emerging Themes 10%
Weight 10.00% |
90.00 to 100.00 %
Thorough, fully developed, insightful and concrete connections among the literature demonstrates critical analysis. |
80.00 to 89.00 %
Sufficiently developed, clear connections among the literature demonstrates understanding of concepts. |
70.00 to 79.00 %
Connections among the literature are vague or under-developed. Analysis is superficial and does not demonstrate critical thinking. |
60.00 to 69.00 %
Minimal connections among the literature. Analysis is lacking or vague. Does not demonstrate understanding of how sources relate/inform one another. |
0.00 to 59.00 %
Requirements unmet |
| Dimension 4: Research Gaps 15% Weight 15.00% |
90.00 to 100.00 %
Thorough, insightful, and fully developed summary of research gaps. Clear evidence of critical analysis in the identification of areas of contradiction, inconsistency, or lacking consideration in the research. |
80.00 to 89.00 %
Sufficiently developed summary of research gaps. Some evidence of critical analysis in the identification of areas of contradiction, inconsistency, or lacking consideration in the research. |
70.00 to 79.00 %
Under-developed, and/or vague summary of research gaps. Minimal analysis in the identification of areas of contradiction, inconsistency, or lacking consideration in the research. |
60.00 to 69.00 %
Minimally developed, and/or vague summary of research gaps. Lacking or incoherent analysis in the identification of areas of contradiction, inconsistency, or lacking consideration in the research. |
0.00 to 59.00 %
Requirements unmet |
| Dimension 5: Conclusions & Recommendation 15% Weight 15.00% |
90.00 to 100.00 %
Thorough, insightful, fully developed interpretation and synthesis informing explicit, well-supported conclusions. Makes fully supported, specific recommendation for addressing problem identified. |
80.00 to 89.00 %
Sufficiently developed interpretation and synthesis informing clear, adequately supported conclusions. Makes adequately supported, specific recommendation for addressing problem identified. |
70.00 to 79.00 %
Vague or under-developed interpretation and/or synthesis. How the research informs conclusions is unclear or vague. Recommendation is uncertain, or vague. |
60.00 to 69.00 %
Lacking, and or minimally developed interpretation and/or synthesis. Conclusions lack support from the literature and/or are unclear or lacking. Recommendation is lacking or uncertain. |
0.00 to 59.00 %
Requirements unmet |
| Dimension 6: Faith & Ethics 10%
Weight 10.00% |
90.00 to 100.00 %
Fully developed evaluation and discussion of ethical considerations and insightful introspective analysis of how personal faith and values inform analysis and conclusions. Fully developed examination if recommendation is in line with, or in contradiction with Christian principles. |
80.00 to 89.00 %
Sufficiently developed evaluation and discussion of ethical considerations of how personal faith and values inform analysis and conclusions. Adequate analysis examining if recommendation is in line with, or in contradiction with Christian principles. |
70.00 to 79.00 %
Vague or under-developed evaluation and discussion of ethical considerations of how personal faith and values inform analysis and conclusions. Inadequate, or brief analysis examining if recommendation is in line with, or in contradiction with Christian principles. |
60.00 to 69.00 %
Incomplete or lacking evaluation and discussion of ethical considerations of how personal faith and values inform analysis and conclusions. Lacking or incomplete analysis examining if recommendation is in line with, or in contradiction with Christian principles. |
0.00 to 59.00 %
Requirements unmet |
| Dimension: 7 Scholarly Research 10% Weight 10.00% |
90.00 to 100.00 %
Seven to ten scholarly sources included in literature review. All sources are classified as “scholarly” meeting the criteria of academically appropriate for doctoral level secondary research. |
80.00 to 89.00 %
Seven academically appropriate sources (no popular culture sources). At least 5 sources are scholarly. No more than two sources from mainstream journals or magazines (New York Times, The Economist, Wall Street Journal, company websites). |
70.00 to 79.00 %
At least 7 sources included with no less than 4 being scholarly sources. No more than 3 sources from mainstream journals or magazines (New York Times, The Economist, Wall Street Journal, company websites). No more than 1 popular culture source (mainstream news outlets.) |
60.00 to 69.00 %
Five or less sources included and/or 3 or less sources are only academically appropriate. Four or more mainstream journals or magazines. Two or more sources are popular culture. Lacks evidence of conducting research in the university library for scholarly sources. |
0.00 to 59.00 %
Requirements unmet |
| Dimension 8: Grammar & Mechanics 10%
Weight 10.00% |
90.00 to 100.00 %
Minimal or no grammar/syntax or mechanics errors are present. Essay is very well organized and very clear. |
80.00 to 89.00 %
There are minor errors in grammar/syntax, or mechanics. Essay organization and sequence is adequate. |
70.00 to 79.00 %
Several grammar, syntax or mechanic errors are present. Errors may be repetitive and/or detract from clear analysis/reasoning. Organization and sequence are inconsistent. |
60.00 to 69.00 %
Prevalent or major errors in the grammar/syntax and/or mechanics of the paper that interfere with the understanding of the analysis. Poor organization or sequencing. |
0.00 to 59.00 %
Requirements unmet |
| Dimension 9: APA & Sources 10% Weight 10.00% |
90.00 to 100.00 %
APA formatting within the body of the paper and/or in the reference page has minimal or no errors. Author consistently applies APA citation and formatting. Analysis is consistently supported with appropriate academic citation. Direct quotations are used sparingly. Paraphrasing demonstrates command of material. |
80.00 to 89.00 %
APA formatting within the body of the paper and/or in the reference page has few minor errors. APA formatting and citation is mostly adhered to. Analysis is mostly supported with citation. Sources are academically appropriate. Direct quotations are used sparingly. Paraphrasing demonstrates command of material. |
70.00 to 79.00 %
APA formatting within the body of the paper and/or in the reference page has multiple errors. APA citation is inconsistent and/or some sources are not academically appropriate. Direct quotations are overused. Paraphrasing skills are developing. |
60.00 to 69.00 %
APA formatting within the body of the paper and/or in the reference page needs substantial revision. APA citation is lacking and/or more than one source is not academically appropriate. Direct quotations are overused. Paraphrasing skills are developing. |
0.00 to 59.00 %
Requirements unmet |
Requirements: 11-12 pls
Here are the articles that I pulled – attached
Answer preview for the “Why is it a worthy effort to examine and synthesize research on a leadership quality that may have a positive impact on organizational communication?” essay………………………
apa 3839 words