Classical And 21st Century Leadership: Concept, Competencies, And Theories

Classical Leadership Approach

Leadership can be defined as the capacity of an individual to lead the employees of an organization towards achieving organizational goals (O’Connell 2014). This literature review will describe the concept of both classical and 21^st century leadership. Moreover, the literature review will also analyze the competencies of 21^st century leaders by mentioning the reason behind the reasons behind the changes in leadership competencies. Furthermore, it will also describe various 21^st century leadership theories in business management.

Leadership is the ability of an individual to manage, direct and influence others in an organization towards achieving organizational goals. According to Aguinis and O’Boyle (2014), effective organizational leadership focuses both on individual development and group development as a whole for overall organizational development. Organizational leadership deals with both employee psychology and expert tactics. Effective leadership does not dominate over others in organization, but guide them properly and provide right sense of direction for achieving organizational success. On the other hand, Neubert et al. (2015) opined that effective leadership is always concerned about boosting employee morale and supporting them in every complexity of their tasks.

The guidance, support, creativity, empathy and emotional intelligence of effective leaders assist them to identify the potential of the employees. Hence, organizational leadership can encourage the employees towards enhancing their productivity and foster organizational success. Gelfand et al. (2017) pointed out that current organization leadership is always linked with evidence-based decisions towards incorporating any changes for adjusting with business dynamics.

Classical leadership approach defines the authority, where the ruling regimes are highly tied to custom or tradition. According to Sheppard, Sarros and Santora (2013), traditional leadership was based on the belief that employees need only physical and economical security. This leadership approach did not consider social or job satisfaction needs of the employees. Moreover, the approach of leadership and organizational decision making process was centralized only within management leaders. Furthermore, Lewis, Boston and Peterson (2017) pointed out that classical leadership was only concerned with organizational profit maximization. For the maximization of organizational profit, the leaders often ignore the employee satisfaction. Moreover, the leaders were mostly profit-oriented rather people-oriented.

As per Copeland (2014), classical leaders used believe in specialization of leaders and used to involve in making assembly line view within the workplace. The used to fragment the organizational tasks in to several fragments and assigned the tasks among the employees having specialized skills. Moreover, the employees were typically specialized in one single area. On the other hand, Klettner, Clarke and Boersma (2014) opined that classical leadership follows hierarchical structure and did not allow the employee in decision making process. The central management board was only liable to take organizational decision and the employees were to only follow the instructions of the leaders towards achieving organizational goals. Those leaders used to simply avoid the social and job recognition needs of the employees and used to think that employees are only motivated through financial rewards.

The perspective of 21^st century leadership is highly intended towards responding to unique opportunities and challenges of the dynamic business world. The contemporary leadership draws upon the business theories and practices, which fosters practical knowledge and transformative changes in the business world. According to Neubert et al. (2015), the contemporary leadership incorporates complete spectrum of values and fosters wide range of competencies, knowledge and skills, which can be enacted in the context-specific purpose of any organization. They are more adaptive and contentious to the changes in business environment. They demonstrate highly level of flexibility for breaking out established problem solving tactics and apply innovative options for solving unique emerging issues. Moreover, they apply creative ideas and values for solving unique business issues and add exceptional value to the business. On the other hand, Leitch, McMullan and Harrison (2013) opined that 21^st century leaders prefer group work in organization rather than individual work and they are always engaged in the group with their heart, spirit, mind and energy. Besides having leadership traits, 21^st century leaders also take initiatives towards learning more and more about the leadership.

21st Century Leadership Perspective

Johnson and Johnson (2014) pointed out that 21^st century not only direct the employees, but also allow them towards demonstrating creativity in their work. These leaders prefer to motivate and inspire the employees through recognizing their contribution in the success of the business. Moreover, 21^st century leaders encourage the employee to think beyond their attributes, which is necessary for achieving desired business goals. One of the most significant examples of 21^st century leader is the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg. Innovation is at the core of his business and his success largely depends on his leadership. He always prefers to take higher risk for giving bigger perspective to his business. On the other hand, Antony (2013) opined that 21^st century demonstrate high level of dedication in the group in which they belong. They prefer to mentor the follower rather than stating only facts. For example, the recent CEO of Apple Tim Cook is always humble and attentively listens to the employees for getting innovative ideas in business success.

Dynamic Business World

According to Canals (2014), today’s business environment is highly dynamic with the frequent changes in customer preferences, economic condition, technological advancement and legal enforcement. On the other hand, Neubert et al. (2015) added that dynamic challenges are often not overcome by traditional leadership styles and therefore more customization aids in addressing varying stakeholders’ needs. Hence, the leaders need break out their traditional business approach and make context-specific strategy for aligning business with changing business environment. Therefore, the 21^st century leaders are much more adaptive and flexible than those of classical leaders for getting business success in dynamic world.

Du Bois et al. (2015) pointed out that the organizational culture is changing day by day and it is completely different from that of early days. The employees are satisfied not only with financial rewards, but also prefer recognition and values for their contribution in business success. On the other hand, Lewis, Boston and Peterson (2017) argued that small SMEs are not able to be arrange lucrative fringe benefits for their employees and therefore they focus more on flexibility. Hence, the 21^st century leaders need to change their leadership style for encouraging and motivating the employees towards their better productivity. Moreover, the 21^st century leaders need to be much more supportive and humble to the employees than the classical leaders. They motivate the people through valuing and recognizing their efforts.

In today’s business environment, organizations highly require innovative touches in the products and services. Moreover, innovation is the only attribute, which helps organizations to gain competitive advantage over their rivals. Hence, 21^st century leaders allow the employee to participate in the organizational decision making process. They have made flat organizational structure rather that hierarchical structure followed by classical leaders.

Resistance is the common instinct of any human being and this is same for the organizational employees. They are quite resistant towards accepting any new process and technique in business operation, which can change their work process. Hence, they need high level of cooperation and support for accepting new business process. Therefore, 21^st century leaders need to have collaborative power for unite the employees and manage employee resistance.

Comparison between Classical and 21st Century Leadership

The classical leaders used to believe in specialization of employees and the employees were specialized typically in one single area. This limitation of the employees used to restrict the business progress. Hence, the 21^st century leaders have changed their leadership competencies and adopted continuous development of the employees through proper mentoring and training. Moreover, effective mentoring can make the employees able to develop their multitasking skills for better business development.Difference between Classical and 21^st Century Leadership

Power Distribution

According to Van Wart (2013) classical leaders used to believe in centralized power distribution of organization and organizational power was only restricted to the management body. The employees were just to follow the instruction of the leaders and work accordingly. On the other hand, Cherry (2014) opined that 21^st century leadership believes in the fact that organizational power is greatest in collective team. They encourage employees through equal participation across all level to get best ideas of the work team for business development.

Information Sharing

According to Gagnon and Collinson (2014) the hallmark of classical leadership was to maintain the ownership of information. Due to central power and authority, classical leaders used to share information only on need basis of business. On the other hand, Haslam and Reicher (2016) opined that open sharing of information is the cornerstone of 21^st century leaders. Moreover, collaboration among the team members is needed for organizational success, which only possible through open information sharing.

Idea Generation

According to Van Wart (2013), classical leaders occasionally entertained suggestions and be open to the ideas of the employees. Classical leaders used to maintain top down approach and the employees were liable to follow the ideas generated from them. On contrary to the classical leaders, Cherry (2014) pointed out that 21^stcentury leaders are open to the innovative ideas of the employees towards bringing unique insights in the business operation.

Resource Allocation

According to Gagnon and Collinson (2014), the approach of resource allocation of classical leaders was based on reactive basis. They used to allocate resources to the employees only on need basis and the employees were to take the approval of leaders for the deployment of resources. On the other hand, Haslam and Reicher (2016) opined that 21^st century leaders allocate resource on proactive and trust basis. Contemporary leaders allow organizational projects to be developed more rapidly through effective allocation of resources.

Resolving Issues

According to Tyssen, Wald and Spieth (2014), in traditional leadership, individual organizational issues used to be dealt on individual basis. They did not take into account the root causes on the issues. It used to keep the leaders fighting with organizational conflicts rather than bringing beneficial changes. On the other hand, Kulshreshtha (2015) opined that 21^st century leadership is built on trust. These leaders dedicate more authority and responsibility to the employees for their tasks for promptly resolving any work issues.

Performance and Feedback

According to Canals (2014), classical leaders used to practice semi-annual or annual review of employee performance. It can have detrimental effect on employees’ performance because of high chances of unfair judgment in performance management. On the other hand, Johnson and Johnson (2014) opined that 21^st century leaders review and praise the employee performance in daily basis. For example, Jack Welch was a classical leader of General Electric, who used to rule the employees on autocratic leadership basis. On the other hand, the current CEO Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric follows 21^st century leadership for driving business innovation.

Developing Focused Vision and Strategies

21st Century Leadership Theories

According to Canals (2014), 21^st century leaders always develop strategic vision keeping in mind the future scope of their organization. Moreover, Johnson and Johnson (2014) pointed out that the leaders communicate and explain the strategic vision with all levels of the organization for creating shared purpose and strategic initiatives. Moreover, 21^st century leaders set framework for directing, inspiring people and driving collaboration among the employees.

Managing Diversity

21^st century leaders are quite able to manage diverse workforce in the organization, who come from different backgrounds. Lewis, Boston and Peterson (2017) pointed out that these leaders give enough freedom to the diverse workforce so that they can grow their unique areas of competencies. Moreover, they can act both as investigator and supporter to the employees for managing diversity. On the other hand, Gelfand et al. (2017) argued that in most of the developed countries women are only given a maximum of thirty percent employment opportunities in top multinational companies, as the managers feel that decision making and problem solving capability is lacking among the women.

On the words of Antony (2013), 21^st century leaders are quite capable of communicating with the employee openly. Moreover, the open information sharing system followed by 21^st century leaders allow them to solve critical organizational issues at ground level. Moreover, they prefer collaborative working culture in the workplace. Hence, this leadership approach can better foster innovation in organization. However, Du Bois et al. (2015) argued that open communication often leads to more resistance from employees as they feel each one’s voice will be heard, which is finally quite contrary to their belief.

While considering the viewpoint of Leitch, McMullan and Harrison (2013), it can be said that the 21^st century leaders are always willing to think outside of traditional system. They always prefer to take risk with an intension to gain higher profit. Hence, organizations can better achieve huge profit from innovative approach. For example, Fred DeLuca, the CEO of Subway always takes risk in his business for better business innovation and profit. On the other hand, Copeland (2014) argued that poor market research often leads to inappropriate diversification of business. In such a case, there is a huge loss of capital and risk coverage takes years. One such example is of Microsoft, which failed to acquire the mobile handset market even though it acquired Nokia. However, Klettner, Clarke and Boersma (2014) opined that by taking risks an organization is open to innovate, and if it is in the contrary, it gains experience through which scope of other innovation is decided.

21^st century leaders remain agile towards responding to the complex and fast moving business world. They are quite able to respond to the constantly changing needs of customers, employees and markets. They are bold enough towards abandoning the unsuccessful business strategies, products and process (Copeland 2014). Moreover, 21^st century leaders are more adaptive, flexible and approachable for incorporating innovation in business approach. It can assist organizations to gain competitive advantage.

Transformational Theory

Transformational leadership is the most significant 21^st century leadership in today’s dynamic business environment. (2014) stated that transformational leaders can use their creativity to put off tough decision. Moreover, they can better align their decisions with clearly defined visions and goals of organization. They trust their instincts and gather necessary information to take business risks, which have potential to gain huge profit. However, they always take calculated risk for having control over the risks. As per Aguinis and O’Boyle (2014), transformational leaders dedicate enough authority to the employees for directing their works by their own. They also allow the employees in organizational decision making process for generating business innovation. One of the most prominent examples of transformational leader is Dion Weisler, who is quite able to incorporate employee innovation towards innovative design of PCs.

Conclusion

Transactional leaders are highly enthusiastic and directive towards achieving the goals of organization. They also motivate the employees through reward and recognition towards better performance. However, they also punish or penalize the employees for lower performance of the employees. Transactional leaders dedicate authority to the employees, but unlike transformational leaders, they always keep quite control over the activities of the employees. It helps in avoiding any disasters due to any mistakes of the employees. Hence, they can have better control over their business in dynamic business situation. Through they want to maintain their status quo, but they are extremely passive on them.

According to Sheppard, Sarros and Santora (2013) contingency theory is based on the perspective that there is no best way of leading a company or making decision. Moreover, the style and approach of leadership is largely dependent on internal and external situation of the organization. On the other hand, Antony (2013) opined that contingent leaders actively apply their leadership style based on the dynamic business environment. It is more predictive and evaluates the business situation properly for testing the style of leadership. Moreover, contingency leadership is more focused on matching the leadership with task structure.

Situational leadership is focused on using the natural ability and personal skills of the leaders to lead the current situation (Canals 2014). The outcome of the business is largely dependent on the ability of leaders to demonstrate confidence and performance with the current business situation.

Conclusion

While concluding the literature review, it can be said that leadership is the power of an individual towards leading the individual employees as well as the whole organization. Classical leaders were only focused on gaining more and more profits even by avoiding job satisfaction of the employees. They used to believe in centralized power and authority in business process. Moreover, they were not also much focused on long term success of their organization. On the other hand, 21^st century leaders are highly adaptive and innovative for gaining competitive advantage over their rivals. They dedicate enough power and authority to the employees for foster unique insights in the business operations.

Reference List

Aguinis, H. and O’Boyle, E., 2014. Star performers in twenty?first century organizations. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), pp.313-350.

Antony, J., 2013. What does the future hold for quality professionals in organisations of the twenty-first century?. The TQM Journal, 25(6), pp.677-685.

Canals, J., 2014. Global leadership development, strategic alignment and CEOs commitment. Journal of Management Development, 33(5), pp.487-502.

Cherry, N.L., 2014. The frontline: a new focus for learning about leadership. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, The, 29(2), p.31.

Copeland, M.K., 2014. The emerging significance of values based leadership: a literature review. International journal of leadership studies, 8(2), pp.105-135.

DuBois, M., Hanlon, J., Koch, J., Nyatuga, B. and Kerr, N., 2015. Leadership Styles of Effective Project Managers: Techniques and Traits to Lead High Performance Teams. Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance, and Marketing, 7(1), p.30.

Gagnon, S. and Collinson, D., 2014. Rethinking global leadership development programmes: The interrelated significance of power, context and identity. Organization Studies, 35(5), pp.645-670.

Gelfand, M.J., Aycan, Z., Erez, M. and Leung, K., 2017. Cross-cultural industrial organizational psychology and organizational behavior: A hundred-year journey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), p.514.

Haslam, S.A. and Reicher, S.D., 2016. Rethinking the psychology of leadership: from personal identity to social identity. Daedalus, 145(3), pp.21-34.

Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T., 2014. Cooperative learning in 21st century. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 30(3), pp.841-851.

Klettner, A., Clarke, T. and Boersma, M., 2014. The governance of corporate sustainability: Empirical insights into the development, leadership and implementation of responsible business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), pp.145-165.

Kulshreshtha, P., 2015. Ethical leadership and contemporary organizational ethics: Principles and cases. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 12(1), p.94.

Leitch, C.M., McMullan, C. and Harrison, R.T., 2013. The development of entrepreneurial leadership: The role of human, social and institutional capital. British Journal of Management, 24(3), pp.347-366.

Lewis, E., Boston, D. and Peterson, S., 2017. A Global Perspective of Transformational Leadership and Organizational Development. Journal of Research Initiatives, 2(3), p.5.

Neubert, J.C., Mainert, J., Kretzschmar, A. and Greiff, S., 2015. The assessment of 21st century skills in industrial and organizational psychology: Complex and collaborative problem solving. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(02), pp.238-268.

O’Connell, P.K., 2014. A simplified framework for 21st century leader development. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), pp.183-203.

Sheppard, J.A., Sarros, J.C. and Santora, J.C., 2013. Twenty-first century leadership: international imperatives. Management Decision, 51(2), pp.267-280.

Tyssen, A.K., Wald, A. and Spieth, P., 2014. The challenge of transactional and transformational leadership in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3), pp.365-375.

Van Wart, M., 2013. Lessons from leadership theory and the contemporary challenges of leaders. Public Administration Review, 73(4), pp.553-565.