Synthesizing annotated bibliography sources into a research paper

¶ … articles as a whole. While there are surely differences between the three articles, they do indeed share a common theme that can be identified and enumerated.

The first article speaks about "fearless dominance" and how the personal traits therein lead to failure or success when it comes to the position of the United States President. They note that the psychopathic personality is one that is teeming with superficial charm, egocentricity, dishonesty, guiltlessness, callousness, risk taking, poor impulse control and so forth. By extension, there is often a strong link between the psychopathic personality disorder and deviancy or criminality-based behaviors and mindsets. There is also often strong comorbidity with depression, anxiety and so on. However, a lot of those traits listed at the onset of this report could be associated with the acts of political leaders who have to act in a bold and decisive way. Their actions are scrutinized and assessed to the nth degree. While need for power is generally looked upon with a negative lens, it is actually a prerequisite for someone to become President in a modern context and political situation. Further, such people invest a "great deal of energy" in getting and staying elected. Lastly, they actually enjoy and crave the process and the job itself. However, not all traits linked with the Presidency are somewhat negatively associated in nature. These better traits include extraversion and conscientiousness. Traits that can be good or bad would include lower levels of agreeableness. Some people correlate high agreeableness with lack of core principles while others call it bipartisanship (Lilienfeld et al., 2012).

The next article is a tad more general in that it tries to associate different leadership styles and the personality traits that go with them. These lens are used to correlate these two groups to transactional leadership, transformational leadership and laissez-faire leadership structures. Like the prior report, a strong cross-section of personality. The traits for each leader type are identified throughout the report. For example, transformational leaders are typified by social and interpersonal skills. Laissez-faire is absence of leadership and avoidance. Transactional leaders, as the name would suggest, focus on what they are going to give and what they expect in return or what they expect in specific transactions that they review and regulate. Just like the prior article, there is a focus on differing leadership styles and traits. There is a focus on what traits are good and which ones are bad. Whether good or bad, this second article found, in its third table, a list of traits that they found to be associated with thinking styles and problem-solving patterns. These traits included evaluative, behavioral, conceptual, innovative, variety-seeking, adaptable, detail-conscious, openness to change and so forth. However, there were some less desirable traits such as perfectionism, private-ness and abstractedness (van Eeden, Cilliers & van Deventer, 2008).

The final article pertains to the impact of personal growth projects on leadership identity development. The study notes that separating the two is not possible because leadership occurs "within the context of interpersonal relationships" (Odom, Boyd, Williams, 2012). Further, the study says that "because people are not fully conscious of all aspects of their identities, leadership educators should help students become aware of the components of their self and develop a deeper self-awareness of the individual (Odom, Boyd, Williams, 2012). The study notes that there are five specific dimensions to the development of a leadership identity. Those five dimensions are developmental influences, developing self, group influences, changing view of self with others and broadening view of leadership. How a particular leadership style and form comes to pass is exceedingly complex and it is equally vexing to analyze and flesh out at times. The five dimensions just mentioned could absouletly cut and shape both ways. People could, intentionally or unwittingly, shape and change a situation or the better or they could also do so for the worse (Odom, Boyd, Williams, 2012).

If there were a single statement that could be made that voices the overall point made by all three articles, part of the answer would be that leadership style, form and performance are shaped by many things and the overall outcome could be good or bad based on the situation, the stakes involved, what the leadership role requires and so forth. The correlation between a psychopathic personality and the President of the United States may seem like a bit of a stretch for some. However, when drilling down on what makes up that personality set, it makes perfect sense. For example, superficiality is a coin of the realm when it comes to being a politician. After all, some people are annoying to talk to and kissing babies probably gets old. However, it is part of the job. However, and as noted by that study, there is a thirst for the job and the power that can be garnered. However, that does not mean that the words and motions are sincere and real. It just means that, real or not, that is the calculation the leader chose to make the point they wanted to make.