Requirements and two articles are below.? reflection of 750 words Do not include other sources. Only the two articles!!!!!! Consider

Leadership is about ideas and actions. Put simply, it is about implementing new ideas into creative

actions to achieve desired results. Doing so, however, is far from simple. We know leadership re-

quires considerable skills and abilities. It requires knowledge and insight—about one’s organization

or entity, its people, goals, strengths and market niche. Yet, something more is needed. Leadership

also requires a kind of awareness beyond the immediate, an awareness of the larger pictures—of

paradigms that direct us, beliefs that sustain us, values that guide us and principles that motivate us,

our worldviews.

This article will, first, briefly examine how the concept of worldviews is used in leadership study

and the contexts in which it arises. Second, it will critically look at worldviews, recognizing that they

are not always coherent and that our belief systems are often fragmented and incomplete. Third, it

will argue for the relevance of the concept worldview in leadership study as a way to explore vari-

ous visions of life and ways of life that may be helpful in overcoming the challenges we face today.

Fourth, it will examine how national and global issues impact worldview construction, especially

among the millennial generation. Our conclusions set some directions for leadership action in light

of worldview issues.

W O R L D V I E W S A N D

L E A D E R S H I P : T H I N K I N G

A N D A C T I N G T H E B I G G E R

P I C T U R E S

JOHN VALK, STEPHAN BELDING, ALICIA CRUMPTON, NATHAN HARTER, AND JONATHAN REAMS

54

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES, Volume 5, Number 2, 2011 ©2011 University of Phoenix View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com • DOI:10.1002/jls.20218

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 2 • DOI:10.1002/jls 55

as well as the effect of dispelling earlier assumptions of an overriding homogeneous and uniform worldview embraced by all.

At this point the concept of worldview is often used interchangeably with terms such as mental models, par- adigms, organizing devices, contexts, and operating systems (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Klenke, 2008). A worldview is seen as serving a particular function, encompassing deeply held beliefs about reality that shape and influ- ence how individuals think and act. Worldviews deter- mine priorities and reinforce one’s view of reality and of what is true and right (Barrett, 2006; Ciulla, 2000; Hames, 2007). Yet, where it has focused specifically on worldviews, leadership study has confined it largely to religious and spiritual worldviews as applied to indi- viduals and groups or organizations (Hicks, 2003; Lindsey, 2007). It has left numerous secular world- views largely unexamined.

The concept of worldview does surface within lead- ership development. It is recognized that a person’s life context shapes how one develops—altering one’s life context alters one’s course of development (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Further, each person interprets and as- signs significance of meaning to different events, which in turn become a lens through which we view the world around us (Avolio, 2005). These are what Gadamer, Weinsheimer, and Marshall (2004) called prejudices: points of view that define our immediate horizon of un- derstanding. Self-awareness, or learning to identify and understand one’s own worldview, becomes a cornerstone of leadership, for a leader’s worldview impacts an or- ganization and those that operate within it. From the perspective of leaders as change agents, this becomes particularly important. Leaders assist others in creating and making sense of their experience and in so doing “reconstruct reality” and “recompose truths” (Drath, 2001, pp. 144, 147).

How Robust Is the Idea of “Worldviews”? As scholars begin to incorporate the idea of worldviews in leadership study, some may ask whether the concept itself is sufficiently robust at this point for leadership study. Setting aside for the time being the particular content of a worldview, as well as the degree of one’s commitment to a

The Concept of Worldviews in Leadership Studies Multiple ways of knowing and cross-cultural literacy are goals of leadership. As such, leadership study requires broad awareness in order to build bridges of understand- ing. It necessitates worldview literacy and the ability to communicate in plural and diverse settings. Essentially, it encourages awareness of one’s own view or vision of life as a means to better engage with others. Awareness of diverse views or perspectives is necessary so people can engage in common cause in a multifaceted world (Drath, 2001).

Worldview is a concept that requires an interdiscipli- nary, multidisciplinary, and perhaps even transdiscipli- nary approach to fully understand its tenets and application. It is overtly and robustly defined in certain disciplinary areas—religious studies, philosophy, and anthropology—but is only slowly surfacing in leader- ship study (Crumpton, 2010). Here, it is used with lim- ited clarity and consensus, with only some semblance and points of agreement.

Lack of worldview definitional clarity and precision within leadership study should not be surprising given that leadership study has undergone significant para- digm shifts. Leadership study emerged within the con- text of modernity and its emphasis on objective rationality. But it came to be influenced by postmoder- nity and its emphasis on multiple ways of knowing, and language and knowledge construction. Today, much of leadership study embraces what is often re- ferred to as glocalism, an emphasis on thinking glob- ally and acting locally (Antonakis, Cianciolo, & Sternberg, 2004; Burke, 2008; Northouse, 2010; Schwandt & Szabla, 2007). Leadership study recog- nizes that increasing cultural and racial diversity have been brought on by globalism. Further, technology has opened the door for alternative ways of viewing the world and the necessity of new leadership practices such as global or cross-cultural leadership and intercul- tural communication (Chhokar, Brodbeck, & House, 2009; Rondinelli & Heffron, 2009). As such, the im- portance of exploring similarities and differences be- tween worldviews has surfaced. With it comes fostering self-awareness (what is my worldview?) and the under- standing of others (what is another person’s worldview?),

56 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 2 • DOI:10.1002/jls

Knowledge of words spoken does not automatically imply understanding; that they make sense to someone else. Our powers of comprehension or even inference are not infallible.

A worldview is also dynamic—it changes over time. Jaspers characterized “the construction of worldviews as a continuous, lifelong process stimulated by the ex- perience of disturbance” (cited in Webb, 2009, p. 15). What one believes and values today can be quite differ- ent tomorrow. Measuring something that does not hold still is difficult (Aerts et al., 2007). Kegan refers to these as “a succession of holding environments” (cited in Webb, 2009, p. 50). Aerts et al. (2007) maintain that any worldview is “fragile” (p. 10). Broekaert (1999) em- ploys the more optimistic term openness—every world- view is open to revision or even replacement. Worldviews are dynamic; they can evolve (Vidal, 2007). Webb (2009) credited Jaspers with insisting that a worldview is indefinite and fluid, a work in progress.

Woodrow Wilson (1952) wrote about leadership as an academic administrator. But did the same thoughts and attitudes prevail in his mind later during his years in public office? We know certain leaders change their views because they attest to that change and lead dif- ferently thereafter as a result. In other situations, of course, the change might be subtle or even unconscious. But do changes in some of the views one holds entail a wholesale change in the worldview one holds?

Many people today are unaware of or have doubts about their own worldviews. Sociologists refer to this as anomie, based on the Latin, “being without coherent wholeness” (Webb, 2009, p. 1). Some seem not to care whether or not they have a worldview. Noonan (1990) alleges that U.S. President Ronald Reagan was quite oblivious to his own worldview. Henry Adams (1999) said much the same thing about President Ulysses Grant. Neither man was known for being particularly introspective. Yet each president in his own way was a leader. Is awareness of one’s own worldview, therefore, a precondition for leadership?

It can, nonetheless, be argued that everyone has a worldview of some sort ( Webb, 2009). Worldviews are socially constructed over time (Vidal, 2007). The com- munities to which people belong—religious, social, ed- ucational, and political—influence what they espouse (Smith, 2003; Wacquant, 2006). Yet, just as no two

given worldview, a question remains as to whether the very idea of discussing or incorporating “worldviews” en- hances leadership study (Webb, 2009). An investigation into worldviews might begin with an epistemic question regarding the detection and examination of a worldview. Can one infer the presence of worldviews? If so, what can be inferred based on the evidence?

Laing (1967) concluded that the study of the experi- ences of others will indeed be based on inferences since no one has direct access to the minds of others. Never- theless, in ordinary experience, people do believe there is something there, which suggests there is something there to interpret. People seem to have reasons for what they do, even if those reasons turn out to be difficult to establish. Reasons for action are linked to worldviews.

Dennett (2005) impugns folk psychology, wonder- ing how anyone can know what somebody else might be thinking—or whether they are thinking at all. He main- tains that it is next to impossible to really know some- one else’s worldview. Even if one does claim to have a worldview, he or she may well be mistaken as to its structure and content. He or she may also not neces- sarily act in light of it.

Dennett’s claims notwithstanding, perhaps most ob- vious to the notion that a person has a worldview is what he or she might say about it. Friedrich Nietzsche (1887/1956), among others, speculated that humans give reasons for their behavior not because those rea- sons did in fact lead to particular decisions, but because of the desire to rationalize behavior after the fact. Do people admit to a worldview to avoid the truth about a basis for action they would prefer to disguise or dis- avow? Might avowals of a worldview be evasions or ra- tionalizations, disguising what really goes on in the human mind? Nietzsche was quite suspicious of peo- ple’s testimony. In fact, Lansky once referred to the “doubting of surface rationalization that so dramatically characterizes virtually all of Nietzsche’s work” (1999, p. 179). The suspicion is that reference to one’s world- view might be a smokescreen of self-justification, whether conscious or unconscious. In other words, as- suming to know someone’s worldview based solely on what is reported about it can be problematic.

Language itself can be a barrier to effective understand- ing of the worldviews of others (Aerts et al., 2007). This holds even when two people speak the same language.

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 2 • DOI:10.1002/jls 57

increasingly elaborate and complex—arguably exceeding any one individual’s powers of explanation. Understand- ing worldview complexity becomes another challenge for leadership study (Aerts et al., 2007; Webb, 2009).

There may be more challenges. What role, for in- stance, do factors such as lust, pride, or greed play in determining worldviews? We know they can play a formative role in leadership action, but how constitutive are they in determining beliefs and values? Do they con- tribute to worldview incoherence, or even worldview schizophrenia, potentially creating discrepancies be- tween espoused belief and concrete action? These factors may be internal to the individual but nonetheless in- fluence and shape external behavior.

Worldviews and Their Implications for Leadership It was the Cheshire Cat in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Won- derland who said, “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.” To rephrase only slightly, if you do not know your own beliefs and values, any will do, as will any road or virtual highway. But thoughtful minds are more discerning. A Lutheran “Here I stand” or a Gandhian “Be the change that you want to see in the world” requires careful reflection in order to achieve the world we need or want, for the world we need or want is crucially linked to our world- view—our beliefs and values. Leadership for action re- quires reflection on our worldviews.

In light of the challenges posed in regard to use of the concept of worldview in leadership study, world- view development, or “know thyself ” as the Oracle of Delphi decreed, is crucial for studying the past, assess- ing the present, and planning for the future. Worldview development, however, must also be linked to compar- ative religionist Max Muller’s dictum, “He who knows one, knows none”: knowledge of one’s own worldview cannot be accomplished without some knowledge of those of others (cited in Sharpe, 1975, p. 36).

G. K. Chesterton argued that “the most practical and important thing about a man is his view of the universe” (1986, p. 41). According to Parks (1991), humans have an inherent desire to make sense of their universe: we are meaning-makers. We need and desperately want to make sense of our world: to compose/dwell in some conviction

people are the same, so no two worldviews are the same. No matter how thick the spirit of homonoia or like- mindedness, there will always be at least some variation (Webb, 2009). Further, worldviews are not ascribed ex- clusively to individuals; a community can also be de- fined by a particular worldview (Aerts et al., 2007; Webb, 2009). Thus, one can speak of a collective world- view influencing individual worldviews and that indi- vidual worldviews can also influence a collective worldview.

In all of this, worldviews require interpretation. Here, two challenges present themselves. First, any interpreta- tion of a worldview will be filtered through the world- view of the interpreter (Klüver, 1926). An investigator must recognize and take into account that he or she, too, has a worldview. That worldview serves as a lens or framework through which the worldview of another is interpreted and described. The existence, character, and content of one’s own worldview do not imply anything similar in regard to that of another person. One is ill advised to jump too quickly from the content of one’s own mind to inferences about the content of another.

Second, worldviews can often be fundamentally inco- herent, inconsistent, and unclear (Aerts et al., 2007). They may be tattered, makeshift constructs that make some sense of daily life, but may also be little more than evolutionary truces or temporary versions of an adopted worldview, as Kegan (1982) inferred. Worldviews may be partial—comprised of bits and pieces that lack ap- parent connection. They may be filled with unresolved contradictions and may change over time. A person’s worldview may resemble a patchwork of evolving sub- worldviews and not something coherent and complete, a notion consistent with the pluralistic imagery es- poused by James (1909/1996).

Yet, any concept is an abstraction from lived reality and certain features will be included and others ex- cluded. No worldview is so elaborate as the reality it at- tempts to depict. That is impossible, and misses the point of worldview construction ( Whitehead, 1938, 1951). Worldviews, however articulate or inarticulate, coherent or incoherent, complete or incomplete, are ab- stractions of the world in which we live. But worldview development is the very act of overcoming inarticulate- ness, incoherence, and incompleteness (McKenzie, 1991). What is constructed will invariably become

58 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 2 • DOI:10.1002/jls

academic disciplines attempt to understand, identify, and describe larger patterns of thinking and/or acting, frequently employing the term worldview in the process (Foltz, 2003; Kriger & Seng, 2005; Sire, 2004).

These larger patterns of thinking or worldviews come with totalizing narratives: assertions or explanations of “the way the world is” as seen from a particular perspec- tive. But all perspectives require interpretation, for real- ity and a particular view of it are not synonymous. No one stands at the mountaintop. For this reason, our worldview is necessarily a “leap of faith” about the na- ture of reality, which requires at minimum a small meas- ure of humility and a great deal of interpretation.

Perhaps it has been the reluctance to distinguish real- ity from its interpretations that has led postmodernism to reject the totalizing or meta-narratives often implied or assumed in worldviews, arguing that these narratives, if not the worldviews themselves, need to be decon- structed for what they really are—struggles for power, control, and domination. History is replete with such worldview struggles, and the current era is no different. Yet, it would be an oversimplification to assert that all attempts to understand one’s own worldview or those of others automatically translate into struggles for or pre- sumptions of moral, religious, cultural, and economic superiority. In leadership studies a genuine desire to un- derstand “the other,” in order to better know the self, might be more appropriate as we come increasingly to recognize ourselves as citizens of a global world.

Reflection on our visions of life and our ways of life— on what we believe and value and why, and the partic- ular kinds of directives and actions that result from them—is important in the academic training of lead- ers, especially when postmodern fears of distinguishing differences will lead to pursuits of power, attitudes of superiority, or false notions of what is real and true. That became apparent in issues surfacing at the 1993 World Parliament of Religions held in Chicago. Ingham (1997) mentions that leading scientists stated, in a sur- prising turn of events, that solutions to the world’s biggest challenges lay not in more political action, better technology, or increased economic initiatives. Solutions, they argued, lay rather in guidance from some of the world’s most respected spiritual leaders. Tapping into the wisdom of the past, understanding its relevance for the present, and allowing it to guide us into the

of what is ultimately true (Peterson, 2001). In the process, we create things, ideas, stories, and experiences that speak to some of the deepest realities of our lives. The result is “worldview construction”—creating mean- ing in a world that can appear confusing and meaning- less (McKenzie, 1991; Naugle, 2002). Worldviews are thus meaningful visions of life.

Worldviews are also ways of life. Everyone has a con- scious or subconscious way of acting and behaving in the world based on particular beliefs and values. These may be known, articulated, or discerned by individu- als or groups to greater or lesser degrees. Achieving con- sistency and congruency in our visions and ways of life is challenging: We all readily profess one thing and do another. Beliefs can be loosely adhered to, incompatible, or in tension, leading to inconsistent or contradictory action: “talking our walk” does not always match “walk- ing our talk” (Olsen et al., 1992; Olthuis, 1985). This may readily reflect human weakness but does not erode the need to be anchored in some coherent sense of the reality we experience.

The reality that we experience does, of course, change. As our reality changes, so does our understand- ing of ourselves, others, and the world we inhabit. In some cases, our worldview changes dramatically but more often than not it is aspects of our worldview that are expanded and deepened. Core philosophical, onto- logical, or epistemological aspects are seldom discarded or abandoned. Further, giving articulation to our world- views is not easy. Often, philosophers, theologians, or poets express what others may only feel or believe in- tuitively. As such, they become spokespersons, leaders, or individuals of great influence, of which Socrates, Martin Luther King Jr., or Vaclav Havel are but a few examples.

When we hear and read of perceptions of the world expressed by persons of great influence, or even others, we come to recognize that those perceptions or perspec- tives can be considerably different. The worldview per- spectives of a Richard Dawkins, Donald Trump, or Karl Marx, for example, differ radically from those of a Desmond Tutu, Chief Seattle, or the Dalai Lama: They are simply not the same and we know it. We also see them played out. We come to know that Capitalism, Communism, and Confucianism differ from one another both as visions of life and ways of life. Various

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 2 • DOI:10.1002/jls 59

future may greatly assist us in overcoming our greatest challenges. It has been noted, sadly, however, that the depths of wisdom offered by many of the world’s tra- ditional religious worldviews, each accustomed to ask- ing life’s so-called “ultimate or existential questions,” are accessed by only a very small percentage of leaders today (Valk et al., 2010).

Asking these big questions in regard to business devel- opments, political action, international relations, and concern for the environment might well, however, lead to some startling discussions and revelations. Incorpo- rating worldview study into leadership study might, for example, change our notions and understandings of wealth and wealth creation. The capitalistic drive to gen- erate wealth might lead from a narrow focus on maxi- mizing profit to a broader one that includes living wages for workers, healthy families, and sustainable environ- ments. Engaging multiple perspectives or worldviews can enhance dialogue as debates of intense public in- terest play out in the public square.

It is also in engaging multiple perspectives in the pub- lic square that we need to increase our critical aware- ness of the different perspectives that are part of our plural society. Fixating on “Christianity lite” or “Bud- dhism lite” renders only dumbed-down and distorted versions crafted for media sound bites or scoring points in public debates. In-depth leadership study must avoid cheapened versions, opting rather to plumb the depths of various perspectives to extract wisdom so desperately needed in our society today.

Critical awareness is also required to achieve balance. Careful scrutiny is needed in discerning when, for ex- ample, consumer capitalism’s desire to generate wealth throughout the world digresses to little more than a dominant strategy to increase world market share and seek cheap labor in order to maximize profits (Wexler, 2006), or when religious worldviews focused exclusively on the spiritual neglect the impoverished reality of their devotees. Open dialogue and discernment involving multiple perspectives will assist in distinguishing true human needs and longings from those that are con- trived, truncated, and insatiable. Discussions also should not be confined to national boundaries or single disci- plines: economic issues are at the same time environ- mental, cultural, spiritual, religious, scientific, and political.

As we deal with the challenges of the 21st century, clearer senses of purpose and direction are required—in essence, clearer visions linked to specific actions. Inves- tigating the bigger pictures—worldviews of self and others—will give guidance and direction to leaders in new or unique ways. We live in a global world. Chal- lenges and issues confronted by one organization, re- gion, or nation invariably become global challenges and issues. Just as leadership must extend beyond the narrow confines of one’s own organization, it must also extend beyond the narrow confines of one’s own perspective. As well, it must dissuade giving prominent voice to those with worldviews that dominate and distort, dis- tain and detract, impede and restrict. Rather, opportu- nities ought to be created for those with visions that strive for balance, have concern for the common good, are understanding of others, and discern paths needed to create the world we truly need or want. This becomes most relevant as dynamics unfold at a larger national and international scale. Those dynamics are beginning to shape individual and collective worldviews in ways not previously experienced, and the changes are impact- ing some generations more than others.

Worldviews and Generational Change Winston Churchill once said that “the longer you can look back, the farther you can look forward” (Langworth, 2008, p. 577). Amidst the current global economic cri- sis there is a need to examine and learn from the past mistakes of the global consumer capitalist worldview in order not to perpetuate those mistakes in the future. Ig- noring the past and looking only to the future may be a human tendency, but it is fraught with shortsighted- ness. Can a people, nation, or organization truly move forward without continually examining its presupposi- tions and paradigms?

According to Strauss and Howe (1991, 1997) and Howe and Nadler (2010), we are living in a period of “civic crisis.” The West is confronted with environmen- tal devastation, economic downturns, social upheavals, housing crises, civic unrest, and political polarization in a manner not seen for some time. While most of this turmoil is not new on the human stage, what is new is the extent of its reach in the information age. Crises

60 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 2 • DOI:10.1002/jls

networking occurring across cultural, national, and worldview divides on a scale never witnessed before. Fourth, family is again seen as the ultimate safety net, largely out of economic necessity in light of a weaken- ing or collapsing of public support mechanisms. Rela- tionships of intergenerational trust are emphasized and strengthened, with less focus on materialism and money as primary drivers. Finally, diversification, which nets knowl- edge and fluency in languages, cultures, and technology, is stressed. A generalist with survival skills may have an edge over specialists with focused skills (Strauss & Howe, 1997).

Strauss and Howe (1997) make the case that the worldviews of Millennials are more globally focused, a shift from the individual to the community. Social net- working takes them outside national borders to the global stage, where technology provides open channels for communication and information sharing to all parts of the world. They exhibit a common willingness to col- laborate among all nationalities, working together to help solve societies problems in ways that will benefit all (Bradley, 2010; Hernandez, 2008; Howe & Strauss, 2007).

Franklin Roosevelt once remarked that the objectives of his generation of young people had changed away from “a plethora of riches” to one of a “sufficiency of life”—an advancement “along a broad highway on which thousands of your fellow men and women are advancing with you” (Roosevelt & Hardman, 1944, p. 243). For the Millennials, this highway is the virtual one, the World Wide Web that has facilitated commu- nication in real time across the globe. Its ability to reach the far corners of our world has seen a transformation that bodes well for the Millennials as they spread their community-based leadership and action across our world, in essence, as they spread their worldview.

Conclusion There is an extensive if not diverse use of the concept of worldview in scholarly literature. That use has also slowly begun to emerge in the leadership literature. The need to link this literature and get beneath the casual uses of the concept becomes paramount. The forego- ing begins a process of laying out the parameters neces- sary to link worldviews and leadership in a scholarly manner.

played out on the world stage are today visible in our very living rooms. But according to Strauss and Howe, they impact different generations in different ways. They have formative influence on the worldview devel- opment of younger generations and increasingly so.

Generational scholars have characterized the large postwar Baby Boom generation as predominantly self- focused—inward-looking to fulfill individual needs (Dychtwald, 2005; Howe & Nadler, 2010; Strauss & Howe, 1991, 1997). The Baby Boom generation has been privileged with tremendous social mobility, eco- nomic growth, political liberty, and individual freedom of the last half-century. But they have also witnessed environmental …

! 12 MIN READ

Cultural Intelligence

Working Confidently in Different Cultures

Today's workplaces are more multicultural than ever, and it's normal to work with people from many different places and backgrounds. This has opened up many new opportunities – but it's also created some challenges.

Cultural differences aren't just about nationality, ethnicity or belief. Many of us work in multigenerational organizations, alongside younger or older colleagues who have cultural references, assumptions and attitudes that are very different from our own. And cultural clashes can even emerge between departments and teams in the same organization.

All of this means that we need to be better at understanding and operating in a wide variety of cultures. That's where Cultural Intelligence, or also CQ, comes in.

In this article, we explain what Cultural Intelligence means, and explore practical ways to develop and enhance it – to ensure that you can work successfully with any group of people, and avoid making costly or embarrassing mistakes.

What Is Cultural Intelligence?

Professors Christopher Earley and Soon Ang introduced the concept of Cultural Intelligence in their 2003 book of the same name. Cultural Intelligence is also known as Cultural Quotient (CQ), which is derived from IQ. Earley and Ang defined Cultural Intelligence as the ability to adapt to new cultural settings.

People with high CQ aren't experts in every kind of culture. Instead, they have the skills to go into new environments with confidence, and to make informed judgments based on observations and evidence.

These people excel at understanding unfamiliar or ambiguous behavior. They recognize shared influences among particular groups, and this allows them to identify the impact of a particular culture.

However, they also know that cultural influences are complex and interconnected. And they're aware that while culture is si

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.