英国 代写：特质型领导理论
特质型领导理论:最初以领导者个人为中心的领导理论被称为伟人理论。这些关于伟人的理论认为，领导者是天生处于领导地位的，他们具有与优秀领导能力普遍相关的特质(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996)。伟人的概念是在工业革命时期形成的，当时组织的目标仍然是增加数量和生产力。领导者的行为集中在生产、员工的激励和奖励的偶然性上。关于创造性娱乐产业的文献，例如电子游戏产业，继续认识到特质是领导力定义中必不可少的一部分。Yoder-Wise等人(1990)认为，该行业及其领导力涉及到个体所使用的个人特质和影响其他成员实现目标的风格。
英国 代写：特质型领导理论
这些定义没有考虑到其他可能影响组织目标实现的因素，例如紧急领导和协作(Dreyfus 1999)。Crosby et al，(2010)认为，识别娱乐创意领导者的有效特质至关重要，而且研究发现，态度比任何内在特质更能促进合作。理论框架:领导理论。基于特质的领导者的变革轨迹和创新都是在他们自身内部进行的。组织的目标仍然是控制资源，避免任何形式的不确定性和控制变化。创新只发生在嵌入的例程不完整的情况下，并且创新的答案是通过关注问题的方法中的leader引入的。然而，Howell等人(1993)的研究发现，单边决策的领导者在组织创新方面的成功程度要低于协同决策的领导者。
英国 代写：特质型领导理论
Theories of trait leadership: Initial theories of leadership focusing over the leaders individually are known as the theories of great man. These theories of great man assumed that leaders were born to be in the leading position and they had traits which were tied universally to good leadership (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). The concept of the great man was formulated during industrial revolution time wherein the organization goals remained in increasing quantity and productivity. The actions of leaders focused over production, employees’ motivation and reward contingency. The literature on creative entertainment industry such as for the video games industry continues recognizing the perspective that traits are an essential leadership definition part. According to Yoder-Wise et al, (1990), this industry and its leadership involves an individual trait used by an individual and styles used for influencing other members towards achievement of goal.
英国 代写：特质型领导理论
Such definitions do not take into account other factors which might influence organizations goal attainment such as emergent leadership and collaborating (Dreyfus 1999). According to Crosby et al, (2010), identifying effective traits for creative entertainment leaders is essential and it was found that attitudes facilitate collaboration in a prevalent manner than any inner traits. Theoretical Framework: Leadership theory .The change locus and innovation for leaders based on trait were held within their own selves. The organizational goal remained in controlling resources, avoiding any form of uncertainty and controlling change. Innovation only happened when routines embedded was not intact and novel answers were introduced through leader in an approach focused on problem. According to Howell et al, (1993), however, it was found that leaders making unilateral decisions had lesser success than the leaders collaborative to create organizational innovation.