Research usually calls for this section to give an overview of the topic under investigation. This has been met satisfactorily in my own view since the reader has given an overview of leadership in the UAE as well as the trend in economy and performance of the public sector as a result of adopting leadership programs. It is worth noting that the efforts made by the author to clearly link effective leadership and performance of the various sectors; make the readers understand the relationship between these two variables. The major problem with this section is that the strong points or arguments are not supported by scholarly articles. What this generates in the mind of the readers is that the entire work is full of author’s opinion. To address it the author opts to make proper in-text citation to win the trust of the readers.
It is in this section that the author manages to bring out the problem statement of the study. According to the author developing effective leaders is considered in many organizations in the UAE. Organizations are looking for a successful Leadership Development Program but currently there isn’t a customized program for public sector organizations (Richard & Gina, 2004).
It is always recommended that a section be provided for where definitions of important terms are presented. This makes the readers easily distinguish between the various major terms (Fielding, 1999). In this section the author managed to clearly distinguish between managers and leaders. However, I feel this was previously done hence it was unnecessary for this section.
This section is where researchers are to show their research capabilities by drawing important points and arguments relating to the topic they are investigating. In my view, this section starts well by explaining the theories behind leadership. This not only gives readers background with regards to leadership and management but also enhance their understanding of the terms (Fu-jin et al., 2009). Another strong side of this section is the ability of the writer to divide it into subsections with subheadings. In my own opinion, this makes it possible for readers to go through the entire work easily (Bryman, 2006).
It is worth noting that the entire section have very strong points and arguments with regards to leadership. However, the major problem here is that majority of the statements are not fully supported by existing literatures. To curb the problem the author needs to use the references listed in the bibliography section to support his views and arguments in order to win the trust of the readers (Smith, 1983). Nonetheless the author has worked hard in ensuring that there is logical flow of ideas making the readers to easily connect the literature to the research’s problem statement and the main aim of the study. Additionally the section titled gaps in the research fully provide further insight into the research problem and continued to bring forth the major solutions to the issue.
Methodology and discussion
The paper lacks a clear explanation of how the study was carried out. This makes it difficult for future scholars to replicate it and come up with similar or close findings. The author has to fully explain the steps of methodological approach taken to developing the paper. On the same note, the section titled discussion is misplaced and opt to have been used in the previous section where the author discussed the various approaches to leadership (Fielding, 1999). Similarly, not all previously stated objectives have been addressed in the discussion.
While concluding the work the author failed to successfully do this as he brought in a new concept of strategic leadership which was not previously discussed. For the references used, the format is confusing and one cannot establish the writing style used by the author as there is a mixture of APA and Harvard. Additionally, most of the references have surnames in upper case. Similarly the references are not arranged alphabetically.
Table 1 Summerizing the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
|The research problem statement is hidden in the texts||A well thought topic successfully linked with the introduction and literature review|
|Study justification is not well written and thus not clear||A clear set of main aims and objectives|
|There is no operation definition of the variables||Use of tables to summarize main points in the literature review|
|No methodology section||Use of subheading/ subtitles in the various sections making ideas easy to locate|
|No account of the study limitation has been provided||The kind of language used is simple and easy to understand|
|Poor referencing styles in the bibliography page||A good abstract, introduction and literature review|
|Table of content giving a clear view of what is expected|
Conclusion and recommendation
From the review of the article “Strategic Leadership Development Program for Potential Leaders” it is evident that the author tried in making the paper good. However, there are some mistakes that need to be corrected for it to be considered an excellent paper. For instance, supporting points and arguments with references, using a subheading for the problem statement, draw conclusions from the discussion as well as streamlining the objectives to be in-line with the research problem.
Bryman, A., 2006. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative research, 6(1), pp.97 – 113.
Fielding, N., 1999. Review Article, The norm and the text: Denzin and Lincoln’s handbooks of qualitative method. The British Journal of Sociology, 50(3), pp.525-534.
Fu-jin, W., Chich-Jen, S. & Wang, M., 2009. The relationships among cross-cultural management, learning organization, and organizational performance in multinationals. Social Behavior and Personality, 37(2), pp.15-30.
Richard, l., & Gina, H., 2004. Leadership development: Past, present, and future. Human Resource Planning, 27(4), pp. 12-24.
Smith, J., 1983. Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher, 12(1), pp. 6–13.