This is a good and relevant question, but also a very tough one to answer given the complexity of leadership.

The essence of Leadership has not changed much over the centuries, only its form. By that I mean that factors such as communication and planning skills have always been paramount and although we have only started to identify and classify these factors in the 20th century, leaders have always employed them instinctively.

So when you ask me if leadership will change in the 21st century, the answer must be two-fold; the essence of leadership will probably remain unchanged, but the business work processes will definitely change leading to an altered method of leadership execution.

posted February 26, 2007

I feel leader's of this century are adopting global models. I am not only considering leader's in IT industry but as a whole specturm of industries. They are making footprints at different geographical locations. They are putting their energy more on expanding business by M&A and attracting more customers across globle.

Leader's of this century are adopting Blue occean strategy where they are trying to capture new market place or space for their innovative products & Services. Industries are moving towards consolidation which is the sign of expanding customer base & geographic presence.

I also feel this century leader's are paying attention on their social responsibilities. They are creating more & more job opportunities and making workplace work environment more friendly.

Lastly, I see lot of young blood has tremendous leadership traits. Lot of creativity & innovation on products & services independent of induistries have cameup in this century.

anil.shrivastava81@gmail.com

- Anil

posted February 26, 2007

I think you have in a sense hit the proverbial nail on the head and i do believe the model is changing towards what you point out in your written opinion.

Specialists... I tend to agree, however businesses cant just run on a specialist work force, while the business models are getting bigger through M&A's, the higher educated youthful workforce coming into play lack that hands on experience of the total business environment that succesful businesses need. I see a younger workforce now in similar models more disillusioned, bored, biting at the bit for career advancement and money however their frustration at being stuck in a specialist role will cause significant problems in the future for the larger employees as it seems to happening now. Secondly their is a customer impact to these specialist roles whereby the customer just becomes another number in the Q to be dealt with when the specialist has time. I refer specifically to the Supply Chain Managment and Logistics industry as an industry example

At the end of the day people that advance in careers normally have had the opportunity to become all rounders. Experience is a valuable word.

rgds Mark

posted February 26, 2007

I've found that leaders have increasingly been trapped by new tools and processes into paths that they should avoid - they have unwittingly blurred the line between a lead by example philosophy and a micro-managing position - but weak leaders always have been trapped by this. It's just easier for them to fall into this trap now.

A good leader should always do two things (in my opinion)above all:

1. Select good quality people.
2. Protect and nurture those people.

That hasn't changed, and I don't think it should.

posted February 26, 2007

I see the 21st century leadership as You describe it - as a textbook example everybody talks about motivation and employee evolution and a lot good intentions are wasted on that account. My experience are still that 90% of the total inefectiviness comes from poor leadership. There is still a hidden parth from "thinking" to "Doing".

Still I´ve also experince that the will to change the situation gets stronger each day.

posted February 26, 2007

Funny you should post this.......two organizations I am involved with: I am trying to clarify the vision both for myself and as a conversation with key people. Also, I am gaining support for the streamlining of my personal goals and activities to mirror those within the context of being a member of both organizations. I devised a plan/networking event to engage people in the possibility of meeting collective goals to serve two different organizations. I do these things to 1) maximize outcomes and 2) engage people in a "win-win" frame of mind. I believe that those even younger than myself will require even more meaning to their lives from organizations, which means streamlining tasks/commands to the necessary. I believe that those leaders that put peoples' lives and the qualty of their ability to manage it a priority for results. Giving people the tools and freedom to streamline their lives to mirror personal and organizational goals also allows for creative thinking to come to real solutions for real business issues. At the same time, this will all be governed by marked changes forcing people to adapt as both employees and employers. Here is a really broad/deep analysis by the Brookings institute about federal employees, which mirrors likely-IMHO similar issues to the private sector.

Links:

• http://www.brook.edu/comm/news/20020715volcker2.htm

posted February 26, 2007

It is an interesting question. Harvard recently had 2 interesting articles online about this topic. The more interesting one was entitled 'In Praise of the Incomplete Leader', the other was 'Discovering Your Authentic Leadership'.

The authors assert that the strongest leader is the one who recognises his/her own weaknesses and supports it through the use of others within the organisation.

They also move away from the more traditional views to state that leadership skills need the capabilities of Sensemaking, Relating, Visioning and Inventing, all of which are interdependent. Relating and Visioning to me are core to any leader. Without people we cannot be successful, but you need to know how to draw the best from each, including yourself, and then create a vision that others find compelling enough that they are willing to follow it and support it with enthusiasm.

What is particularly useful to the leader, is if the Board of the organisation has 'wisemen', people with experience and relevant skills, who can temper passion with realism, and help make sense of signals that can sometimes be confusing, and sometimes just be 'devil's advocate' to create balance.

The leader needs balanced skills, but also requires a context of balanced relationships that he/she has to create to support them in their endevours.

Life has become far more complex and moves at an increasingly rapid rate, and therefore the leader needs to be able to make sense of changing environments much quicker than ever before, create a supporting vision and creatively invent effective ways of reaching the objectives.

Links:

• http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/common/item_detail.jhtml?id=R0702E

posted February 26, 2007

Very interesting. If only all leaders and their leadership style right now displayed self-consciousness and being present! Like you, I agree creativeness to be an important element; additionally, strong personal and moral values - not just having them in 'an interview situation' but regularly displaying them in behaviours and attitudes - particuarly given todays ethical/environmentally conscious climate.

posted February 26, 2007

Nothing has changed except that the world has gotten smaller.

Great leaders throughout history have surrounded themselves with capable managers, who in turned shared the vision of the leader. And in turned compentently managed their staff towards a commonly held goal.

The vision of the leader allows all to come around in unison in order to reach the goal. The goal in turn may change as the business landscape changes. Good leaders see these changes and react to them proactively (well in advance).

Good managers nurture their subordinates through coaching, and mentoring. This fills the void as they move up in the organization.

All parts of the organization work towards the vision as set by the leader (or leadership). Staffing professionals (the holders of the vision flame) meet regularly in order to keep the 'puls-beat' of the organization. This in turn ebables this part of the firm to source and hire talented people, who share the values of the firm/country/enterprise.

The (business/political) landscape may change, and good leaders are always on the lookout for that. They will steer the 'ship', and keep the managers and staff abreast of these changes (sometimes the managers communicate the wind, and sea changes to the leader).

Nothing has changed except a dearth of good leaders, and the world is as small as it ever was.

Best,

Steve (Linking to me is good for your health)

posted February 26, 2007

Besides creativity I also think that real craftsmenship becomes a real asset in the new world. Making and building concets is one, implementing them is two. People who can do both, are the king of the hill

posted February 26, 2007

It sounds like what you are saying is that you see a trend towards leaders creating and adding value for their customers, rather than focusing on managing wasteful general activities within their organization. Specialization always leads to innovation in the hands of a capable leader, as noted by industry leaders like Henry Ford and Taichii Ohno (Toyota). We never should have seen the shift described by Ray, given the fact that a company should always focus its resources towards creating and delivering value to its customers. All other activity is wasteful and unreasonable to expect a person to do; therefore, it should be eliminated or simplified through automation wherever possible.

One of the responses from another network member, regarding the youthful workforce and a general problem with transferring that specialized knowledge to a technologically savvy generation; in my opinion this is probably the greater problem that leaders will face in the 21st century and beyond. Mark noted that the younger workforce is disillusioned, bored and frustrated in their 21st century, specialist roles. When these feelings are not addressed by leaders, these feelings will cause the specialized workforce members behavior to backfire on industry, wreaking havoc on customer service performance. Part of the reason for this is that current management theory still doesn’t emphasize the crucial role that leaders have in life-long training of their employees, encouraging creativity and problem solving in their subordinates roles, all while aimed at improving customer service and adding value to products and services.

This is best summed by another post on this question, by Robert Spencer, another LinkedIn member:

“A good leader should always do two things (in my opinion) above all:

1. Select good quality people.
2. Protect and nurture those people.”

Robert had also mentioned that many potential leaders fall into the trap of using tools and pathways that should be avoided. I could not agree more, if what Robert really means is that using the current host of tools (Lean, 5S, Six Sigma, etc.) is substituted for his two suggestions above. They are fantastic tools, but they are just that, tools. If a person picks up a hammer and successfully pounds one-hundred nails without bending them, does that make her a carpenter? Hardly. Therefore, the same thinking applies with leadership. Tools are not substitutes for skills.

No matter the point in time, leadership of people will always rely on the quality of the interaction between leaders and the people they serve. This is a skill that must be taught and practiced in order to master.

posted February 26, 2007

Today's world is very competitive, perhaps more competitive than ever.

It has been - is - and always will be about achieving and maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage.

Great leadership is the reason why some companies have a clear competitive advantage.

Superb leadership is the reason why some some companies lose and later convincingly regain competitive advantage.

While technology can be one of the reasons for a clear competitive advantage, great leadership has nothing to do with technology.

To achieve sustainable competitive advantage one must maximize (and at the same time balance) the needs of customers, employees, and shareholders. These fundamentals have been forgotten in many cases only to serve as painfull reminders to the business world when a well known company announces poor financial results.

Great leadership: Intel making a decision to get out of the semiconductor business and enter the microprocessor business.

Could be a lot better: GM, Ford ...

Great leadership: Toyota. There is a reason why TPS stands for Toyota Production System

Good leadership (example of transparency): JetBlue -- "we made mistakes, these are the changes, we will get better"

Great leadership: Amazon.com. In Jeff Bezos' words, 'you earn reputation by trying to do hard things well'

Good leadership: Audi division of VW; nice recovery after unintended acceleration reports

Leadership is one of the most difficult responsibilities one can have. That's why great leaders are always in demand.

posted February 26, 2007

It seems to me that Leadership is fundamentally about:

1. Establishing a direction by creating a vision.
2. Aligning people by communicating the goals and seeking commitment. 3. Motivating and inspiring people.


The rate of change seems to be speeding up – thanks largely to new technology. Also the world continues to globalize, so increasing the diversity of the environment with which businesses have to interact. In short there is more change and more complexity.

I think that the fundamentalsof leadership remain unaltered although perhaps the emphasis changes slightly.

There is a higher premium on good leadership in most organizations, but not a fundamental change in the game. It also places a higher premium on leaders continuing to learn and adapt to new situations.

posted February 26, 2007

Leadership is an attribute that depend on what the company's owners (shareohlders & stakeholder) wanted.

Today the world is running more and more fast, with continuous changing. Yes, it could be good but it's also very stressing, and that not only for an aged or medium-aged person but also for a young.

All that has imposed a brief timing for the processes, where you can't do everything, so you have to select what you have to do, or better, what the company's owner want: normally revenues and profits.

On this way, there are lacks of attention about the development of the people, the interaction between person and their organizations, and, at the end, moral values.

I hear young people who are boring after 1-2 years of work, and if they will change company probably nothing will change for they.

I would like to end with a provocation: in the 21st century it's normal to make out of the company as more possible, so will also the leadership be outsourced?

posted February 26, 2007

cems.org
respectresearchgroup.org

posted February 26, 2007

Another interesting article on this topic : Beyond vision, time to talk about passion and precision, by Oren Hariri

For Hariri, leadership requires a total commitment to a purpose and to achieving it. Passion is the fuel that generates creative ideas and keeps the uphill momentum in execution. But executing vision also requires precision: the best leaders are vigilant in details and dig for truth, they challenge superficial analyses and urge team members to ferret out reality to embrace the right course of action.

“Passion without precision leads to irresponsibility and recklessness. Precision without passion leads to slow, hypercautious dullness. The lack of either will puncture the veneer of vision and mission. The presence of both provides backbone, and thus boosts the probability of success.” I like this statement.

Links:

• http://www.harari.com/articles.php?WhichArticle=48

posted February 26, 2007

Ray,

I have read all the answers and what I miss is inspiration. Look what Kennedy did with his people. He said: "I believe we the American people should commit ourselves to put a man on the moon within this decade."
Nobody at that time knew how and they did, because they committed.

Concerning adding value for customers. A company that fails to do so has never lived long. In the future it will be the same. It is the only thing that counts. Lets ask ourselves what the reason is that most companies that survive (5%) only last for about 40 years on average, while men is living almost twice as long.

On the other hand companies like Shell are existing for more then 200 years. Arie de Geus who has lead the strategic planning group with Shell, tells us in his book The Living Company, that the only reason they did so well, was because they listened to their customers.

Kind regards,

Robert Oosthout.

posted February 26, 2007

The problem has been with us for, well forever. Strongly heirarchical management worked for a long time because it takes a huge amount of vision for a "worker" to be able to operate independently. While we have seen more and more reliance on independent workers, the available pool for qualified people hasn't grown nearly as fast.

Yes, organizations are trying to push more of the "work" down to the client rather than doing it themselves. So, instead of the sales person filling out an order form, it is presented online for the client to puzzle over. This has both positive and negative effects and balancing them is a challange. Transforming a business from one where there is personal contact into a faceless web-driven service provider is not usually a positive step. But computers are always much easier to manage than people.

The challange for the 21st century is clearly to balance revenue/profit and workplace culture. We will be leading probably the most independently thinking generation yet and trying to get workers to adjust between the instant gratification of life outside work with the requirements of work. Leadership in the 21st century will mean more reliance on self-directed workers and less on company structures and frameworks. Developing capable self-directed people rather than building environments where they can be externally directed.

Any sort of collective or concensus management is a both seductive and very difficult to implement correctly. There are many that have been taken in by the seductive side of it without the skills to implement it correctly. My opinion is that correct implementation is a problem that a solution has yet to be found for. I've never seen it working. There will always be a leading visionary and almost always not everyone else will "get it."

posted February 26, 2007

The question did not refer to leadership in the public sphere, which is what drives leadership in the private sphere. In the former, IMO, there isn't much of it. People-pleasing seems to trump principle, especially in politics. Also, there is a lot of trashing the opponent, as opposed to doing anything constructive or helpful. If public persons would set a better example, perhaps Ray's ideals would have a better chance of seeing the light of day. Now, it takes great courage to become a leader. One has to overcome what appears to be an overarching expectation of mediocrity.

posted February 26, 2007

One thing is certain about the future of leadership, it is going to be ephemeral. Till the industrial revolution, leadership used to last generations and even had tribal antecedents. So one category of genetic pool could and was accepted as natural providers of leadership.

As civilization progressed beyong the industrial revolution, leadership span shrunk. Even today, leadership does not last whole decades. In the second half of the twenty first century, leadership would probably be fleeting and incidental. There would be no need for visionary leaders, setting out to chart unknown waters. Leaders would perhaps be entertainers, who could hold attention spans as there would be too many distractions all around. They would be ambience creaters where discourse could take place to humour everyone.

sanjay9negi@hotmail.com

posted February 26, 2007

Thanks for your reflexions and question. It is not so easy to answer it and I have no intention to be the owner of the truth. Let me try to comment what I have seen during my long professional life in almost 100% of companies . recurrent conflicts of leaderships , SELF-s, EGO-s , personnal and professional interests , leaving in second plan all the concepts you have mentioned . When the top and middle management levels fight each other and do not follow agreed mission, values , actions etc and low staff and colleagues always try to protect each other by hiding any not properly activities and behaviours , there are serious false perceptions, communication, transparency what makes the leadership a case of a good intelligence in terms of enough and good informations about what has been actualy happening at the company to enable properly decisions. All the adjectives we use to apply to differences among leadearships may be because of that wihtout sense. Of course, it is only my private opinion after having worked , lived and worked in differents countries. South America ( Brazil and Chile ) , Europe( UK and Germany ) ,Africa ( south Africa ) , Asia ( China, Japan, Korea , Taiwan, Hong Kong ) Norht( Canada, EUA , Mexico ) and South ( 10 countries) Cental( 5 countries ) Americas and worldwide in general . Maybe I am wrong and have not been able to realize the leadership faces. Shall we change leadership up side down, maybe yes !

posted February 26, 2007

As a regular contributor of "Answers" in the Linkedin social networking, leadership and other areas that bare on ethics and philosophy I have to inject my thoughts. The post I place in the opennetworkers blog is a cut and paste job from an essay I wrote for the Sarbanes Oxley Journal last year. My focus is less a matter of generalist or specialist as moralist over functional. Implicitly it is the person that matters more than his or her work experience.

Links:

• http://opennetworkers.blogspot.com/2007/02/leadership-matters.html

posted February 26, 2007

I also see the workflow being automated and clients will have more
resoures to do business. However, communication in company today is
one of the biggest reasons a company is stagnet and doesn't prosper.

Live interaction with the client is the only thing that most company's have
going for them. Leadership will have to do more than become creative
in the 21st century to retain clients and prosper.

posted February 26, 2007

Businesses are changing. We live in a volatile world where companies, products and people come and go. As we struggle to do more with less while carving out a niche in a global economy, it is evident that leadership will have to evolve too. My experience in managing business operations and performing human resource functions have led me to realize just how powerful the role of leadership is within an organization. Leadership has a direct impact on whether or not a business will succeed or fail. If an organization does not have effective leaders communicating initiatives, ensuring employees have the tools to succeed in their roles, and serving as a model of what the organization values, there is no doubt that the organization will be negatively impacted.

Many of us realize these forces are present and are having an impact on how we do business. However, many may not realize another force that is redefining what we currently recognize as leadership. For the past 3 ½ years, I have been conducting intergenerational issues and how they impact business. Many younger people are weary of working for large organizations. The perception of corporations equate to exploitation. They do not want to support organizations that do business at the cost of the community, environment and humanity. Simply working for or purchasing products that a large organization sells or manufactures is considered support and younger people are drawing the line in the sand stating that they want change. This creates a challenge for business to recruit and retain the younger generations. More and more organizations are realizing that they need to brush up their image and articulate how people fit into their business model. Their leaders need to eat, live and breathe these values and they themselves must reinforce what the company values. Lip service and fancy marketing campaigns will not do it. After Enron and WorldCom, it is no surprise that younger people are more skeptical of big business. Corporate loyalty is no longer there, and that is becoming more evident in the workplace regardless of generation. With the exodus of the baby boomers, it is clear that change is on the way and that businesses will need to revaluate what leadership means to the organization and how it will be valued. The days of promoting the best “process-doers” and “widget-makers” are ending. Selecting leaders will be based on company values, ability to understand business systems and invaluable interpersonal communication skills to guide and support their teams.

posted February 26, 2007

I see amongst the answers here a lot of mixing of leadership and management. In a nutshell, management is a stewardship of the current. It takes a leader to get people moving, reaching and striving in a NEW direction. That isn't going to change anytime in the next 100 Years regardless of the technology. Web2 is nice as are all of the other great tools that have popped up and will continue to be born but all of them really only address the quantity and/or quality of work preformed and address only the management side. Leadership is the passion to define a pinnacle and then convince others to reach for that pinnacle. Associated with it is risk. That is a key defining element of leadership which no amount of technology will improve, enhance or alter.

posted February 26, 2007

Leadership is doing the right thing rather then something personally politically or economically expedient.

posted February 26, 2007

Hi Ray - thanks for the so interesting question.

I would like to contribute some of the most famous quotes on Leadership:

“A leader shapes and shares a vision which gives point to the work of others.”
- Charles Handy

“A leader is a dealer in hope.”
- Napoleon Bonaparte

“The job of the leader is to speak to the possibility.”
- Benjamin Zander

“Leadership is not a person or a position. It is a complex moral relationship between people, based on trust, obligation, commitment, emotion, and a shared vision of the good.”
- Joanne Ciulla

“The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers.”
- The Drucker Foundation

“The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers.”
- Ralph Nader

“Leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less.”
- John Maxwell

“The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between the two, the leader must become a servant and debtor. That sums up the
progress of an artful leader.”
- Max DePree

“The growth and development of people is the highest calling of leadership.”
- Harvey S. Firestone

“The quality of a leader is reflected in the standards they set for themselves.”
- Ray Kroc

“Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate, and doubt to offer a solution everybody can understand.”
- Colin Powell

“You can’t lead anyone else further than you have gone yourself.”
- Gene Mauch

“Leaders are visionaries with a poorly developed sense of fear and no concept of the odds against them.”
- Robert Jarvik

“Nothing so conclusively proves a man’s ability to lead others as what he does from day to day to lead himself.”
- Thomas J. Watson

“When a man assumes leadership, he forfeits the right to mercy.”
- Gennaro Anquilo

“Leadership involves finding a parade and getting in front of it.”
- John Naisbitt

“Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.”
- Alexander Hamilton

“Always do right. This will gratify some and astonish the rest.”
- Mark Twain

“If you stop learning today, you stop leading tomorrow.”
- Howard Hendricks

“True leadership must be for the benefit of the followers, not the enrichment of the leaders.”
- Robert Townsend

“Never discourage anyone who continually makes progress, no matter how slow.”
- Plato

“Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall.”
- Stephen R. Covey

“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind in others the conviction and will to carry on.”
- Walter Lippman

“The very essence of leadership is that you have to have vision. You can’t blow an uncertain trumpet.”
- Theodore M. Hesburgh

“You manage things, you lead people.”
- Admiral Grace Murray Hooper

posted February 26, 2007

With the trends you accurately described (shift away from bureaucratic processes toward direct client relationship management), I think leadership will become more "team-centered" and less "organizational."

Indeed, a client interacts with a person or a team (e.g. an account management team), but rarely with an entire organization.

Thus, the leader's personal power and ability to manage such a team, will become more important than the previous hierarchy-based kind of leadership, which was more internally focused and "shielded" from market forces.

In other words, the new leaders will have to be more authentic and will have to exhibit authority and power based on their own person, their own knowledge and experience.

The ultimate (albeit very tough) question for leaders to ask is, "If I did not have the formal authority conferred to me by my title or my rank in this organization, would the people Í am currently "leading" still choose me as their leader?"

If the answer is no, then the "leadership" of such a person is an illusion.

posted February 26, 2007

It was around 2001 when i got to print a nice Powerpoint Slide i'd created over my head.... four different scetches ( still good ones! ) and six words : Creativity is a long term investment!

As years passed, i got to change two different companies, even position inside them. I can tell you that even today, this A4 print still hanfg over there.. beyond jobs, positions or levels.. It;s just become plastic coted in order to be able to stand the daily sunlight and everything else...

To cut a long story short, i am quite sure that lack of creativity is a really strong disadvantage for every todays company, giving all other organisations in the same sector a competitive advantage in some cases... i've seen it happening.

The second thing that should change as well is the silo effect that really is another major issue to almost every mid to large size company. You see, Directors, General Directors and even Deputies, get to think af their Department as an individual creature inside the organisation, and not as part of a strong team. This probably comes secon their minds, and just comes up whenever an Executive Committee is held in order to announce the yearly bonuses. By the time they get out of the BOD room, they've already forgotten their real role.

You see, power can easily take away someones mind, still i get to see more and more of this spiecies these days, to almost any company. This is sad.

That said, i'd just conclude that Corporate Management should take 2 Major Leaps in order to be able to operate efficiently.

Step one : Forward -> Think creatively, stop copying so worn out ideas again and again. Think out of the box, at last!

Step two : Backwards -> Learn to be a member of a company and act like one, do not try to convince almost everyone ( up to your level ) that YOU are tha comany itself! You are so wrong.

Keeping just those two little things in mind, i guess 21st century will bring a new era. It might seem a little outdated, but if you want to go forward, you might probably need to take a few steps backwards.

Welcome to the century of Simplicity Revisited!

Regards

John N. Zeppos
yzeppos@cosmote.gr

posted February 26, 2007