Assignment

Your task is to portray a leader of the digital age and critically analyze a specific leadership situation or behavior using two different theoretical lenses (mental models).

You select a concrete, well-documented leadership situation — e.g., a strategic decision, a crisis response, a team conflict, a stakeholder negotiation, a transformation initiative — and analyze it through two complementary theories from the course or the suggested theory list. The analysis must show (a) what each theory reveals about the situation, (b) what each theory misses that the other captures, and (c) how combining both lenses produces a richer understanding than either alone.

The portrait of the leader needs to be based on publicly available data and/or originally collected data and must be comprehensible without prior knowledge of the person. The theories need to be introduced precisely — not just named — and then applied analytically to develop explanations of the leader’s behavior and the observable outcomes. Your presentation ends with theoretically grounded conclusions for yourself and your fellow students.

The presentation must take between 10 and 12 minutes (strictly enforced) and is followed by a 10-minute discussion led by an assigned challenger.

The core idea

The latticework approach from Unit 1 teaches us that complex situations require multiple mental models. This assignment puts that principle into practice: you take one real leadership situation and show how two different theories illuminate different — and complementary — aspects of it.

The goal is analytical depth, not breadth. A focused analysis of a single situation through two well-chosen lenses will always be stronger than a surface-level overview of a leader’s entire career.

Dual-lens analysis

A good dual-lens analysis goes beyond applying two theories side by side. It demonstrates genuine integration:

Each theory is precisely introduced — key constructs, mechanisms, and boundary conditions, not just a label.
Each theory is applied analytically — explaining why the leader behaved as they did and what followed, not merely describing what happened using theoretical vocabulary.
The analysis reveals what each lens captures and what it misses — e.g., “Social capital theory explains how the leader mobilized support, but SDT explains why the team was intrinsically motivated to follow.”
The two lenses complement or productively tension each other — either they illuminate different facets of the same situation, or they offer competing explanations that sharpen the analysis.
The conclusions are grounded in the combined analysis — not generic leadership advice, but specific insights that only emerge from the dual-lens approach.

Time allocation

Leader & situation portrait ~3 min
Theory A — brief introduction & application ~3.5 min
Theory B — brief introduction & application ~3.5 min
Integration & conclusions ~2 min

Leaders

To avoid duplication, you must propose a shortlist of two to three leaders you would like to portray. You will then be assigned to a leader from your shortlist.

If you do not propose a shortlist or if there are too many duplicates, you will be assigned a leader you will portray. For deadlines see schedule.

When selecting a leader, prioritize those with well-documented specific situations — leaders where you can find detailed accounts of particular decisions, crises, or initiatives, not just general career narratives.

Theories

At least one theory must stem from the course. The following additional theories might be helpful as a second lens:

Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Contingency Theory
Functional Leadership Theory
Job Demands-Resources Theory
(Digital) Mindset
Psychological Safety
Self-Determination Theory

Social Cognitive Theory
Social Identity Theory
Social Judgement Theory
Socio-Analytic Theory
Shared Mental Models
Stakeholder Salience Theory

Choose your two theories carefully. The strongest presentations will select theories that illuminate different aspects of the same situation — e.g., one theory that explains the leader’s internal motivation or cognition and one that explains the relational or structural dynamics. Avoid selecting two theories that essentially say the same thing from slightly different angles.

Challenger role

Responsibilities

The challenger is randomly drawn immediately after the presentation ends and leads the 10-minute discussion.

The challenger should address at least two of the following dimensions:

Challenge an assumption: identify an assumption in the theoretical analysis and question its validity.
Propose an alternative lens: suggest a third theoretical perspective that might explain the situation differently — and why it matters.
Surface a tension: identify a contradiction or unresolved tension between the two theoretical lenses that the presenter did not address.
Test the conclusions: examine whether the conclusions follow logically from the analysis — or whether alternative conclusions are equally plausible.
Extend the analysis: propose how the dual-lens analysis might apply to a different situation or leader.

The challenger is expected to deliver substantive, theory-informed critique — not just ask clarifying questions. Think of the challenger as a spontaneous peer reviewer: respectful but rigorous.

Since the role is unannounced, the bar is calibrated accordingly: at least two of the five critique dimensions (rather than three), and the grading rewards the quality of analytical thinking demonstrated, not polished delivery.

After the challenger’s opening questions (5-7 min), the remaining discussion time is open to all students.

Why spontaneous?

It forces very student to listen actively to every presentation, ready to take on the role. The challenger is not an opponent but a critical thinking partner whose task is to deepen the analysis through spontaneous, theory-informed critique. The challenger role is individually graded (see grading criteria).

You cannot outsource real-time analytical thinking.
Every student listens as a potential challenger — active engagement, not passive attendance.
The skill being assessed is the ability to think critically on the spot — a core leadership competence.

Submission

All students need to submit the required documents at the same time.

Upload your presentation slides (.pptx) via Moodle until the deadline.
Use following naming scheme: DL_ST26_Surname-Name
You will present the slides uploaded to Moodle (no late updates).
For the deadline and the presentation dates, please see the schedule.

The presentation slots will be announced shortly after the submission. Challenger assignments are not announced in advance — they are drawn at random after each presentation.

Grading

Presentation (70%)

An excellent presentation has the following characteristics:

The leadership situation is concrete, well-documented, and comprehensible without prior knowledge of the person. (Situation portrait)
Both theories are precisely introduced — key constructs and mechanisms are explained based on scientific literature, not just named. (Theoretical precision)
Both theories are applied to explain why the leader behaved as they did and what followed — the analysis goes beyond description. (Analytical depth)
The analysis reveals what each lens captures and misses, and shows how combining both produces richer understanding. (Integration)
Insights flow logically from the dual-lens analysis and are specific, not generic. (Conclusions)
The presenter communicates confidently, uses visual aids effectively, engages the audience, and stays within time (11–13 min). (Delivery)

Challenger (30%)

An excellent challenger contribution has the following characteristics:

The critique demonstrates active listening and identifies genuine gaps, tensions, or alternative interpretations on the spot. (Analytical engagement)
Questions and challenges reference specific theoretical constructs — not just general opinions or surface-level observations. (Theoretical grounding)
The challenger proposes a plausible alternative or complementary theoretical lens that the presenter did not consider. (Alternative perspective)
The discussion is conducted respectfully and rigorously, balancing own questions with opening space for the audience. (Discussion leadership)

Formal requirements

Compliance with formal requirements and good scientific practice are critical pass criteria for all parts, means that in case of non-compliance the exam is automatically failed (e.g., plagiarism, even light forms).

A note on grades

It is unlikely that every student will receive a very good grade, i.e. deliver an outstanding performance — see the meaning of grades. Instead, it is to be expected that the grades will spread across the spectrum.

Grade	Meaning
`1` — very good	A truly outstanding achievement that (not only) shows no deficiencies in the criteria mentioned, but also gives both the supervisor and external assessors an excellent impression.
`2` — good	Work that exceeds the average requirements/performance and is easily recognizable and presentable to the outside world as a “good performance”.
Note	2.5 is the average of passed assessments, i.e., an “average performance”
`3` — satisfactory	A performance that achieves the desired goal “to a satisfactory extent”; however, deficiencies can be identified here and there.
`4` — sufficient	A performance that “still adequately satisfies” the requirements, but deviates from the expectations placed on it in several ways.
`5` — not sufficient	A performance that does not meet several of the criteria mentioned.

Literature search

There are several ways of searching literature for your theoretical foundations. I recommend using the Web of Science or Google Scholar search engines.

Additional recommendations

Use the citation count as primary quality indicator (rule of thumb: the more cited, the more significant is the paper).
For understanding the theory, try to follow the conversation (start with early, introductory papers and then read more recent papers).
Look for literature reviews that summarize the current state of knowledge.
For finding recent empirical evidence, look for papers that apply the theory.
When selecting your two theories, ensure they come from different perspectives (e.g., one micro/psychological and one meso/organizational) to maximize complementarity.