In my class, Critical Perspective Leadership Theory (OGL 530) at Arizona State, we need to propose a final paper concept, and the thesis is up to us. In the course, we're reading:

1. Chandler, J., and Kirsch, R. (2018). Critical leadership theory: Integrating transdisciplinary perspectives. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN: 978-3-319-96471-3
2. Wilson, S. (2016). Thinking differently about leadership: A critical history of leadership studies. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN: 978-1-78811-6800

I'm looking for someone to help me brainstorm a few thesis ideas that align with the critical theory concepts and will make it easier to find context on the topic. I've attached the paper's rubric to this request

Critical Theory Final Paper Criteria Paper Structure/Organization Introduction (10) Clear introduction is established to introduce the thesis (topic and/or conceptual argument) Previewed paper's main points Organization (10) Paper is clearly organized APA section headings are used Transition are used between sections Conclusion (10) Clear conclusion is established to close out argument Paper Content Explanation/understanding of critical theory is evident (20) Integration of critical insights is established to support paper's thesis (20) Relevant scholarly research articles are used (20) Literature is clearly synthesized and supported within critical leadership (20) Model/Image A model/image is used to illustrate the paper's topic arguments/concepts/integration of critical leadership References Minimum 8 to 10 references are used from scholarly articles (10) APA formatting (10) Paper Formatting APA formatting (12 pt, Times New Roman font, 1- inch margins) Paper is clearly written, arammar rules and Ratings 40 pts 0 pts Full No Marks Marks 80 pts 0 pts Full No Marks Marks 30 pts 0 pts Full No Marks Marks 20 pts 0 pts Full No Marks Marks 30 pts 0 pts Full No Marks Marks Pts 40 pts 80 pts 30 pts 20 pts Intro There is a sense in historical leadership theory that we can find a universal truth that will help us understand what leadership is; an empirical definition that will serve us continually and in all contexts. In more current thinking we have accepted that this is untrue, but in its place attempted to find a set of algorithms that can be applied universally when certain variables are in existence; if X, Y, and M are true apply algorithm 1, if W, Y, and D are true use algorithm 2 and so on. This paper attempts to question this current understanding of the state of leadership and suggests that we may be better served with a new view of leadership that can take a higher level of complexity into account. As Aristotle used the city state as a frame of reference it would seem a fair assumption that those using his work would also apply the framework of leadership situations as a \"human to human(s)" interaction. However, as we move forward with artificial intelligence and machine learning it is valuable to examine the need for the leader/follower relationship to be viewed as potentially \"non-human to human(s)" in future contexts. Suze Wilson speaks quite a bit in terms of leader and follower, referencing this throughout the work as given, if you have a leader there are followers and to follow one has a leader (Wilson, 2017). While Robert Solomon also assumes an organizational structure of employees and executive (Solomon, 2004). More broadly we can state that leadership studies in general have assumed that leadership occurs within human relationship structures solely. Jennifer Chandler and Robert Kirsch raise this question in their work looking at leadership as providing movement and direction and then examining the views of other sciences on movement and direction (Chandler & Kirsch, 2018). Leadership theory has become a machine Leadership studies has been continually looking for a universal algorithm that could be applied to define leadership or to an actual leader within organizations and areas of human behavior or human interaction. While universal truth is admirable, the fact that we are also basing these current studies on historical leaders who have largely been male redacts any complexities of gender orientation, inherited experience, socioeconomic backgrounds or lived experiences; all of these things interplay to create the positioning in which a person enters leadership (Ford, 2005; Ospina & Foldy, 2009). In this attempt to find an algorithm that we can apply universally, we lose the sense of human complexity and the nature of our complex interactions and experiences. We see this search for a universal algorithm throughout the popular texts written on becoming a leader, or how to be a leader; but we also see this within leadership research itself. A search for an algorithm that can be applied that tells us when leadership has occurred, or how leadership comes about, has led to a state in