Articles / Leadership Skills RRL: Review of Related Literature Guide
Development, Training & CoachingLearn how to write a leadership skills RRL (Review of Related Literature). Guide to researching and synthesising academic literature on leadership.
Written by Laura Bouttell • Fri 9th January 2026
A leadership skills RRL (Review of Related Literature) synthesises existing research and scholarship on leadership capabilities, providing the theoretical foundation for academic studies, theses, and dissertations. Writing an effective RRL requires systematic searching, critical evaluation, thematic organisation, and clear synthesis of what scholarship reveals about leadership skill development, measurement, and impact. Understanding how to construct this review matters for students and researchers seeking to ground their work in established knowledge.
What distinguishes a strong leadership skills RRL from a weak one is the quality of synthesis rather than mere summary. Rather than listing what individual studies found, effective reviews identify patterns, contradictions, and gaps across the literature, building toward arguments about what we know, what remains contested, and where further research is needed. This guide helps you construct a literature review that demonstrates scholarly command of leadership research.
The Review of Related Literature serves specific purposes.
An RRL on leadership skills is a comprehensive, critical synthesis of published research examining leadership capabilities—their definition, development, measurement, and impact on organisational outcomes. It establishes what is currently known, identifies theoretical frameworks, evaluates research methodologies, highlights contradictions and debates, and reveals gaps requiring further investigation. The RRL provides the scholarly foundation upon which new research builds, demonstrating that the researcher understands the field's current state.
RRL components:
| Component | Purpose | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | Context setting | Why leadership skills matter |
| Theoretical framework | Foundation | Key theories and models |
| Theme synthesis | Knowledge organisation | What research reveals |
| Critical evaluation | Analysis | Strengths and limitations |
| Gap identification | Contribution | What remains unknown |
| Conclusion | Summary | State of knowledge |
The RRL is important because it: demonstrates scholarly knowledge (showing you understand the field), provides theoretical foundation (grounding your research in established concepts), justifies your study (showing why your research is needed), identifies methodology options (learning from prior approaches), prevents duplication (ensuring you're not repeating existing work), and establishes credibility (building trust in your scholarly capability). A weak RRL undermines entire research projects; a strong one establishes authority.
RRL importance:
The literature covers several major areas.
A comprehensive leadership skills RRL should cover: definitional frameworks (what leadership skills are), theoretical foundations (trait theory, behavioural theory, situational approaches), skill taxonomies (categorisation of different skills), development research (how skills are built), measurement approaches (how skills are assessed), outcome relationships (skill links to performance), and contextual factors (how context shapes skill requirements). Coverage depth depends on your specific research focus.
Core RRL topics:
| Topic | Key Questions | Major Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Definitions | What are leadership skills? | Foundational texts |
| Theories | What explains leadership? | Academic journals |
| Taxonomies | How are skills categorised? | Framework research |
| Development | How do skills develop? | Training literature |
| Measurement | How are skills assessed? | Psychometric research |
| Outcomes | What do skills produce? | Effectiveness studies |
| Context | How does context matter? | Contingency research |
Several theoretical frameworks appear consistently in leadership skills literature: trait theory (early research on leader characteristics), behavioural theories (what leaders do rather than who they are), situational/contingency theories (matching leadership to context), transformational leadership (inspiration and change), emotional intelligence (affect and relationships), skills theory (Katz's technical, human, conceptual framework), and competency approaches (integrated capability models). Your RRL should address frameworks relevant to your research focus.
Major theoretical frameworks:
Systematic searching ensures comprehensive coverage.
Search for leadership skills literature through: academic databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC), search terms (leadership skills, leadership competencies, leadership development, leader effectiveness), citation tracking (following references in key papers), key authors (identifying prolific researchers), seminal works (foundational texts everyone cites), recent reviews (meta-analyses and systematic reviews), and grey literature (dissertations, reports, conference proceedings). Multiple search strategies ensure comprehensive coverage.
Search strategy:
| Source | Access | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| Web of Science | University subscription | High-impact journals |
| Scopus | University subscription | Broad coverage |
| PsycINFO | University subscription | Psychology focus |
| Google Scholar | Open access | Starting searches |
| Citation tracking | From key papers | Finding related work |
| Dissertations | ProQuest, institutional | Detailed research |
Key sources in leadership skills research include: Leadership Quarterly (premier academic journal), Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Harvard Business Review (practitioner-academic bridge), Journal of Management, Academy of Management publications, key books (Northouse, Bass & Riggio, Yukl), and meta-analyses (comprehensive research syntheses). Familiarity with these sources demonstrates scholarly awareness and provides quality evidence for your review.
Essential sources:
Organisation determines review effectiveness.
Organise your RRL either thematically (by topic or concept), chronologically (by development over time), methodologically (by research approach), or through conceptual combination (integrating multiple approaches). Thematic organisation typically works best for leadership skills, allowing you to address different capability areas, theoretical perspectives, and research findings within coherent sections. Avoid source-by-source summaries that read like annotated bibliographies.
Organisation approaches:
| Approach | Structure | Best When |
|---|---|---|
| Thematic | By topic/concept | Most leadership reviews |
| Chronological | By time period | Showing field evolution |
| Methodological | By research method | Methodology-focused study |
| Theoretical | By framework | Theory comparison |
| Conceptual | Combined approaches | Complex reviews |
An effective structure for leadership skills RRL includes: introduction (scope, importance, organisation), theoretical background (relevant frameworks), thematic sections (organised by skill area or research focus), synthesis and critique (what the literature collectively suggests), gap identification (what remains unknown), and conclusion (summary of the field's state). Each section should build toward your research rationale.
Recommended structure:
Effective writing synthesises rather than summarises.
Synthesise rather than summarise by: grouping related findings (what do multiple studies collectively show?), identifying patterns (recurring themes across research), noting contradictions (where studies disagree), explaining variations (why might findings differ?), building arguments (what does the literature support?), using your voice (you're leading the reader through scholarship), and connecting to your research (how does this inform your study?). Synthesis interprets; summary merely reports.
Synthesis strategies:
| Strategy | Weak (Summary) | Strong (Synthesis) |
|---|---|---|
| Organisation | Study-by-study | Theme-by-theme |
| Voice | Passive reporting | Active interpretation |
| Connection | Isolated findings | Integrated patterns |
| Purpose | What studies found | What we know |
| Critique | Absent | Present throughout |
Improve RRL quality through: topic sentences (clear paragraph focus), signposting (guiding readers through organisation), varied citation integration (not just "X found that"), critical voice (evaluating, not just reporting), connection phrases (showing relationships between studies), transitions (linking sections coherently), and precise language (accurate scholarly terminology). Quality writing demonstrates scholarly maturity.
Writing techniques:
Criticism demonstrates scholarly depth.
Critically evaluate by assessing: methodology quality (appropriate design, sampling, analysis), theoretical grounding (connection to established frameworks), generalisability (how broadly findings apply), limitations acknowledged (researcher awareness), contradictions explained (why might studies differ?), bias potential (funding, affiliation, assumptions), and contribution significance (does the research matter?). Critical evaluation shows you understand research quality, not just research findings.
Evaluation criteria:
| Criterion | Questions to Ask |
|---|---|
| Methodology | Was the design appropriate? |
| Sample | Who was studied? Is this representative? |
| Analysis | Were methods appropriate? |
| Theory | Is there theoretical grounding? |
| Limitations | What constraints existed? |
| Bias | What influences might affect findings? |
| Contribution | Does this advance knowledge? |
Common limitations in leadership skills research include: self-report measures (subjective assessment), Western/US bias (limited cultural diversity), cross-sectional designs (single time-point snapshots), sample constraints (often students or single organisations), definition inconsistency (varying terms and concepts), causality challenges (correlation vs causation), and measurement validity (do instruments assess what they claim?). Acknowledging these limitations in your RRL demonstrates critical awareness.
Common limitations:
Gaps justify new research.
Identify gaps by looking for: unstudied populations (who hasn't been researched?), unexplored contexts (what settings are missing?), methodological limitations (what approaches haven't been tried?), contradictions needing resolution (where do studies disagree?), theory-practice disconnects (what practical questions remain?), under-examined relationships (what variables haven't been connected?), and temporal gaps (what's changed since major studies?). Gaps identified should align with your research focus.
Gap identification strategies:
| Gap Type | Example | Research Opportunity |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Few studies of non-Western leaders | Cross-cultural research |
| Context | Limited healthcare leadership research | Sector-specific study |
| Methodology | Few longitudinal studies | Long-term tracking |
| Contradiction | Conflicting EI findings | Resolution study |
| Relationship | Unknown skill-outcome links | Correlation research |
| Temporal | Outdated research | Contemporary replication |
Gaps support your research by: justifying need (this research is necessary because...), positioning contribution (this study addresses...), demonstrating awareness (I understand what's missing), guiding design (gaps inform methodology choices), framing significance (this matters because it fills...), and establishing novelty (this hasn't been done before). Your RRL should build toward showing how your research addresses identified gaps.
Gap-research connection:
An RRL (Review of Related Literature) on leadership skills is a comprehensive synthesis of published research examining leadership capabilities—their definition, development, measurement, and impact. It establishes current knowledge, evaluates research quality, identifies theoretical frameworks, and reveals gaps requiring further investigation.
Length depends on context: undergraduate dissertations typically require 3,000-5,000 words; master's theses 5,000-8,000 words; doctoral dissertations 10,000-20,000+ words. Quality and comprehensiveness matter more than length—cover what's necessary to establish your research foundation.
Key databases include Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Business Source Complete. Google Scholar provides broad coverage but requires careful quality filtering. Citation tracking from key papers often reveals important sources databases miss.
Organise thematically rather than source-by-source. Focus on what multiple studies collectively reveal, not what individual studies found. Use your voice to interpret patterns and contradictions. Build arguments about what the literature supports rather than reporting isolated findings.
Include frameworks relevant to your research focus: trait theory, behavioural theories, situational/contingency approaches, transformational leadership, emotional intelligence, skills theory (Katz), and competency models. Depth of coverage depends on your specific study.
Look for unstudied populations, unexplored contexts, methodological limitations, unresolved contradictions, under-examined relationships, and temporal gaps. Gaps should align with your research focus and justify why your study is needed.
Include seminal works regardless of age, but emphasise recent research (past 5-10 years) for current knowledge. Leadership research evolves, so outdated findings may not reflect contemporary understanding. Balance foundational sources with recent scholarship.
Writing a leadership skills RRL requires systematic searching, critical evaluation, and thoughtful synthesis. The goal is demonstrating scholarly command of what research reveals about leadership capabilities—not simply listing studies, but interpreting patterns, contradictions, and gaps across the literature.
Begin by searching systematically across multiple databases, tracking citations from key papers, and identifying seminal works. Organise thematically to enable synthesis rather than summary. Evaluate research quality critically, acknowledging limitations and biases. Identify gaps that justify your research contribution.
Remember that your RRL establishes scholarly credibility. A comprehensive, well-synthesised review demonstrates that you understand the field and can position your research within it meaningfully. Take time to write well, synthesise thoughtfully, and build toward the research rationale that your RRL should ultimately support.