Leading in the Twenty-First Century

The Effective Leader: Transformation Transformation of America is awesome. From agrarian to industrial to technological society

The Effective Leader: Change and Conflict Change has brought conflict… Between nations; Clans; Management & workers; Consumers and producers; Religions; Ethnic groups; Socio-economic groups.

The Effective Leader: It’s All About People Our greatest failure is the inability to secure cooperation and understanding. “The consequences for society of the imbalance between the development of technical and of social skills have been disastrous” (Mayo, E The social problems of industrialization. Boston: Harvard Business School.)

The Effective Leader: Change and Challenge Focus on action and implementation. Will be, as never before, core influences on organizations. Must be able to diagnose, adapt, and communicate to meet the needs of changing, challenging world. Inflexibility won’t work.

The Effective Leader Old Model Technology and equipment to reduce labor costs. Improved output was thought to involve more production by applying engineering techniques such as methods analysis, work flow, systems. Twenty-First C. Model Better use of the potential available through human resources. (Hersey, et al 2002)

The 21 st C. Flexible Leader Risk taking Tolerant of ambiguity Ease in uncertain times Inquisitive, scientific interest Experimental High interaction with external environment Information gathering Entrepreneurial, innovative Functional orientation

The 21 st C. Organizational Leader Shares goals, responsibilities, information. Supportive, participative. Mission/goal orientation. Results orientation. Creative individualism.

Mr. Churchill was a great war leader. A paradigm example of national leadership qualities: BRAVE, SINGLE-MINDED, DETERMINED, RESILIENT. Communicated ideals with clarity and rhetorical force. Followers knew where they stood and what was expected. The value of his leadership was confirmed by success: HE WON.

Spartacus was a leader of men and armies. Judged to be heroic...but a heroic failure: HE LOST! Still, he was reported to control people, inspire, motivate and create a vision for them. Presumably he had charisma, eloquence, physical prowess, and strategic abilities. “He was a hero who might have been more of a leader if he had been born into the right race, clan, family, time.”

Mother Theresa acquired moral leadership through self- sacrifice, values, and altruism. Had spiritual and moral power but never achieved much political power. She is identified as a leader because she had followers who admired/ supported her charities, self-sacrifice, good works. Not because of military or political power. Moses and Mohammed, on the other hand, had spiritual power but also gained political power in secular domains.

Hitler had vision, energy, charisma, ideology, and persistence. (“All the qualities we seek in leaders.”) However, Hitler exhibited a particularly virulent and dangerous type of leadership: morally bankrupt. He possessed, charisma, ideology, and persistence but also embraced…. FEAR, MANIPULATION, LIES, RUTHLESSNESS. What earned Hitler political power? The charisma, ideology, vision, and persistence? The fear, manipulation, lies, ruthlessness?

What do all of these leaders have in common? What’s distinguishes them from each other? Hint: What distinguishes them has more to do with inputs (what they put into their leadership at the front end) than outputs (what they accomplish at the back end).