This new age will be increasingly challenging in ways not before experienced. This suggests that a new kind of leader and leadership are needed, and this paper outlines the most compelling of current thought on leadership qualities demanded of the 21st Century leader. Fundamental meaning of leadership has not changed since the dawn of time. It has always been about the person in charge of the group. Being a leader has always meant having power over people and the authority to make decisions for the group.
The difference has always been what you do with that authority. Are you a transactional, transformational or a visionary leader, there’s multiple ways to lead. All of the listed tactics will get the Job done, forever, morale and motivation are not normally associated with a dictator type of leadership. As previously mentioned, there are many different ways to lead. The servant leader is the style 21st century leaders are always looking ahead, spending most of their time focused the future.
They are entrepreneurs, understanding that their organizations operate in an ever changing environment seeking products and services to meet upcoming customer needs. 21st century leaders are risk takers, balancing the need to take chances with the normal responsibilities of the Job. 21st century leaders are good communicators, understanding the importance of effective communication at all levels. They are systematic thinkers seeking to understand the root causes that shape the issues and challenges they will face.
They look for courses of action that will exert the highest possible output as they respond to those issues. 21st century leaders also look for creative ways to connect their organizations to the world around them, exploring and imagining new forms of partnership that will support their missions and advance their strategic plans. The reason servant leadership speaks to me is because some of the most influential leaders in recent history have changed the world with servant dervish.
A hands on leader who will motivate people and point them in the right direction is a leader I will One of the most interesting aspects making this new millennium different is the kind of leadership needed and, with time, the kind of leader deemed acceptable. Where for most of recorded history leaders were expected to be stalwart, tireless, bold, decisive, and dispassionate, amongst other extraordinary traits, the role of the contemporary leader is changing, and is a must. This may sound as if the leader of the 21st Century is Superman or Wonder Woman, perpetuation of the mythic-hero leader of the past.
This couldn’t be further from the truth. If there is anything super about individuals as leaders in the new millennium it is in their ability to collaborate; to build bridges amongst and across diverse places, people, and ideas; to create power in the collective; and to nurture teams and communities that sustainable lead themselves. Past and Present Leadership The Great Man theory of leadership is the earliest established view. This view essentially holds that individuals are born with potential for greatness, endowed with special personalities and abilities that destine them for leadership and success in those roles.
They acquire power, wisdom, and courage naturally (Yuk, 2002). The Great Man theory was prevalent amongst “inherent view of leader-ship” that embodied much of early 20th Century thought on leadership (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991) and was largely manifest in the trait theories that gained ground in the early decades of last century. Trait theorists also assumed that leaders were born; they possessed personal characteristics differing from the masses who, generally, were keen or needed to be led (Hollander, 1986). Traits included appearance, intelligence, strength, bearing, and even station r position in society.
Trait theories dominated leadership research until the asses, but were eventually overcome by the fact that it was impossible to identify traits that explained and predicted leadership under all conditions (Nee, 2008). The assumption that Great Men and those with leadership potential are born kept attention away from developmental aspects of leadership (Hollander, 1986). What experiences and education contribute to a leader’s development? There was also an aspect of elitism in these views, as leaders are born privileged; only the privileged could become leaders.
We don’t know if such beliefs actually hindered the less advantaged or just reflected the bias inherent in society. As a postscript, trait theories are not entirely dead, as some current competency models suggest that a set of characteristics can describe effective Dissatisfied with the traits centered approach, scholars turned to behavioral theories of leadership (Nee, 2008; Yuk, 2002). Behavioral theories, emphasizing interactions with followers how leaders should behave were pervasive during the period spanning the asses to the asses.
Focus began to shift to situational aspects of leadership in the asses, leadership behavior appropriate to context or contingent on the situation (Nee, 2008; Yuk, 2002). Fiddler’s (1967) least preferred co-worker model, Hershey and Blanchard (1969) situational leadership theory, and Woofed and Allis’s (1993) path-goal theory of leadership reflect this new approach. It was thought that leadership style in interaction with followers and the situation can determine the effectiveness of group performance, different leadership styles are most effective in different types of situations (Ashore, 1973; Fiddler, 1983; Vehicle, 1977).
In situational leadership theory model (SLOT), leaders vary their focus on task and legislation behaviors to deal with different levels of follower readiness (ability and willingness), Hershey and Blanchard (1969). Successful leadership can be achieved with the right leadership behavior and it is influenced by the level of the follower’s readiness (Blanchard, Cigar, and Nelson, 1993; Fernando and Vehicle, 1997). The advent of behavioral which we are born to something we can learn, giving rise to the leadership development movement.
By far the most influential leadership theory currently in vogue is transformational leadership. Transformational and transactional leadership theory was expanded by many scholars, led by Bruce Viola and Bernard Bass during the asses and asses (see, for example, Bass, 1985; sass, et al. , 1987; and Bass and Viola, 1994. Transactional leadership theory involves contingent reinforcement. Leaders’ praise and rewards motivate followers, and negative feedback and disciplinary actions correct them.
Bass and Sterilizer (1999) explained that the leader makes assignments or consults with followers about what should be done in exchange for implicit or explicit rewards and the desired allocation of resources. Thus, the transactional leader is keen to Leadership for the Twenty First Century emphasis the giving of rewards if followers achieve the agreed level of performance standards (Bass et al. , 1987). Transactional leadership theory is objective; it assumes that leaders and followers act rationally in accordance with the contractual relationship and fair transactions.
While transactional leadership focuses on the transactional relations of leaders with subordinates, transformational leadership attempts to include four components: charisma or idealized consideration most treatments of transformational leadership deal with these four components; Humphreys (2005). Transformational leaders attempt to elevate the needs of the follower in line with the leader’s own goals and objectives, while the transactional leader concentrates on maintaining the status quo by satisfying the follower’s current psychic and material needs (Bass et al. , 1987).
The focus of transformational leadership lies on the inner dynamics of a freely embraced change of heart in the realm of core values and motivation, on intellectual stimulation, and a commitment to treating followers as goals, not means, while transactional leadership focuses on outcomes and aims for behavioral compliance not necessarily consistent with the nine needs of followers (Bass and Sterilizer, 1999). Transformational leadership is also considered moral leadership based on values, vision, charisma, and the leader’s concern for others in the organization.
Bass and Sterilizer (1999) write, “if transformational leadership is authentic and true to self and others, it is characterized by high moral and ethical standards in each of the dimensions … It aims to develop the leader as a moral person and creates a moral environment for the organization”. Transformational leadership theory continues to be elaborated and distinguished. Though there is little doubt of its primacy at present; there is disagreement amongst scholars as to how narrow or broad transformational leadership is and what a concern is centrally.
Leadership retrospective leads to several conclusions. Leadership evolution has progressed from a view that leaders are born and belong to an elite minority to a view that leaders are bred. They make themselves, or can be developed, or both. Bennie (2003) writes that “true leaders are not born, but made, and usually self- made. Leaders invent themselves”. Deeper (1989) agrees, “Leadership is an art, meeting to be learned over time”. Thomas (2008) would also agrees “Crucible experiences, when properly set up, managed and mined, can help aspiring companies develop their next generation of outstanding leaders”.
This has important implications for access to leadership and its potential breadth. Leadership needs not to remain the prerogative of the few. Limited by neither traits nor social class, many more individuals can, at least potentially, become leaders. This is good for not only individuals, but for organizations as well. The broader spectrum of qualities individuals might ring to leadership positions adds richness and variety that may make organizations adaptive and resilient.
Leadership has moved from something a man is (with notable exceptions, men have been the leaders throughout history) to something an individual does, a way of behaving in dynamic inter-action with others and within situational contexts. Greater consideration is given to the nature of followers. Leadership is coming to be seen as a social process, consisting of mutual influence (Herein-Brome and Hughes, 2004) and increasingly a distributed process (Caravan, Lingered, and Peacekeeper, 2007; Spillage, 2005). The decentralized, networked world demands on many.
The many, for the first time in history, will all have necessary access to information; they must be willing and able to use that intelligence to make time sensitive decisions in situations. As we proceed further into the new millennium, there still seems to be a belief that the better the leader the better the performance, due to some influence he or she exerts over others. Leaders still get the credit for success and the blame for failure. And, there have been too few success stories and many sagas of horror in recent decades. There is some suggestion that invitational leadership is being supplanted because it no longer works.
By conventional, I don’t mean inappropriate given the circumstances of our changing world. By definition, conventional leadership became conventional because it worked. It was prevalent and favored. Managerial leadership, for example, was an integral part of scientific management and the growth of the corporation and bureaucracy. To a lesser extent, the left column of Table, managers management, reflects a view of leaders that harks to an era preceding the current “age of uncertainty’. Conventional leaders drove progress for much of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Their