Final answer:
The criticism that the skills model is too general in explaining leadership performance is true. It's criticized for not being context-specific and not providing clear developmental guidelines for leadership. Historical scarcity of recognized female leaders is due to few opportunities.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that 'The skills model has been criticized for being too general and less precise in its ability to explain leadership performance' is True. Critics argue that this model can be overly broad and does not account for specific contexts or the diverse nature of leader-follower dynamics. Additionally, it might not provide clear guidelines for leadership development, given that it emphasizes a wide array of competencies without establishing how they interact in various situations.
In contrast, when assessing the family life cycle model, a common criticism is that it is too narrowly focused on a sequence of stages, rather than accounting for the complexities and variations in family experiences. With regard to female leadership throughout history, the statement that best expresses the scarcity of recognized charismatic female leaders attributes this to the fact that few women have had the opportunity to hold leadership roles over the course of history.