Has public leadership as we know it reached the end of its shelf life? Exploring leadership styles in the 21st century

Abstract

In this article, the aim is to question the relevance of well-known public leadership styles to the 21st century. The aim is buoyed by the notion that traditional leadership styles, even more so conventional ways of leading, will no longer ensure success, as 21st-century risks have had a considerable impact on the role and disposition of the public leader. The article draws on a qualitative review of academic papers and articles, documentary materials, surveys, and reports. An analysis of this material is used to gain a broad understanding of how public leadership styles are transforming under the impetus of the 21st century. The discussion is based on the challenges that public leaders are likely to face over the next decade, the pacesetters for public leaders to transform in the 21st century, and recommendations guiding public leadership styles for the 21st century.

Keywords

Public leadership leadership challenges leadership styles VUCA

Introduction

Public leadership in the 21st century is under severe scrutiny (and even vigorous attack) because of a radically changing world (called the ‘chaos era’) (Baltacı and Balcı, 2017: 30). This changing world brought about 21st-century risks: economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological (World Economic Forum, 2019). At the same time, these 21st-century risks led to revolutionary leadership styles that have had a considerable impact on the role and disposition of the public leader. In fact, public leadership may be one of the most important concerns of the present time, alongside issues such as poverty, hunger, inequality, clean energy, sustainable cities, climate change, and world health (United Nations Global Compact, 2017).

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) place the focus on public leadership (or lack thereof) when it comes to success in achieving these goals. It could even be argued that the mentioned focus areas captured in the SDGs are, in themselves, symptomatic of poor leadership in the world. Pursuing the SDGs in the 21st century demands a renewed look at public leadership styles, decision-making processes, and ways of rendering services to communities (Gil-Garcia et al., 2018) while doing away with old leadership recipes and conventional ways of leading.

For the purpose of this article, the concept ‘public leader’ will be defined as a public representative of a country, such as a president or a monarch, who may also be the head of government or head of state. Traditionally it is expected that a public leader will craft a sustainable vision alongside strategies for achieving that vision, ‘doing the things right’, (efficiency) as well as ‘doing the right things’ (effectiveness) (WebFinance, 2020). The essence of efficiency is getting things done in a manner that exhausts the appropriate amount of resources. The essence of effectiveness, meanwhile, is that things are done that lead to results in the realm of responsibilities. The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) (2017) states that a ‘good leader’, in addition to being efficient and effective, needs to create public value (also supported by Andrews, 2018), and act lawfully and accountably.

This article aims to question the relevance to the 21st century of well-known public leadership styles. The aim is buoyed by (i) the notion that traditional public leadership styles, but even more so conventional ways of leading, are transforming under the impetus of the 21st century, and (ii) observations of public leaders today (North Korea, New Zealand, France, Qatar, San Marino, Ukraine, Austria, Finland, Estonia, Georgia, and Canada) who take new approaches, often considered unorthodox. The following question guided the investigation: to what extent has public leadership styles, as we know them, reached the end of their shelf life? The sub-questions, asked consecutively, are as follows:

How is ‘leadership as we know it’ defined?

What are the challenges public leaders may face over the next decade?

Who is setting the pace for public leaders to transform?

What recommendations can be made to guide public leadership styles for the 21st century?

The article draws on a content analysis of academic papers and articles, documentary materials, surveys, and reports. An analysis of this material is used to gain a broad understanding of how public leadership styles are transforming. This article starts with a review of scholarly literature on leadership theories (Avolio et al., 2009; Baltaci and Balci, 2017; Kok and Jordaan, 2019; Leitch and Volery, 2017; Newport and Harter, 2016; Sarkar, 2016); traits (Judge et al., 2002; Newport and Harter, 2016), competencies (Sae-Lim, 2019), skills, and leadership styles (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Cohen, 1990; Forsyth and Maranga, 2018; Lewin et al., 1939; Locke and Latham, 1990; Weber, 1947). Journal articles and internet resources were used to determine the significance of the aforementioned concepts. The literature review illustrates the importance of these concepts within an international context. The article proceeds as follows. First, an account is given of the challenges that public leaders may face over the next decade. This section shows that public leadership styles in the future will be greatly influenced by (i) technology (Oberer and Alptekin, 2018), (ii) globalisation (Booysen, 2016; Nunez, 2016), (iii) knowledge workers (Pietersen, 2016), and (iv) diversity (Hartley, 2018; Herold, 2016; Iordanoglou, 2018). It is suggested that a need exists for a paradigm shift in leadership development to prepare future public leaders (Paxton and Frost, 2018). Next, the article touches on the 21st-century agenda, setting the pace for public leaders (i.e. the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development). The article concludes with recommendations made by the CISL (2017) review on ‘good leadership’ as a point of departure for supporting the aim of this article.

Leadership as we know it, defined

Leadership has been defined as: ‘…the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with the routine directives of the organization’ (Katz and Kahn, 1978: 528); ‘…the process of influencing the activities of an individual or a group in efforts toward goal achievement in a given situation’ (Hersey and Blanchard, 1988: 86; Stogdill, 1950: 3); and ‘…the art of influencing others to their maximum performance to accomplish any task, objective or project’ (Cohen, 1990: 9). Within these boundaries, researchers have narrowed down traits (distinguishing personal characteristics) that classify an individual’s behaviour (Judge et al., 2002). Traditionally, three traits, namely intelligence, dominance, and masculinity, have commonly been found to relate to leader emergence (Judge et al., 2002). Other traits linked to leadership excellence are that leaders need to have a vision (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Gaunt, 2006); set clear and high standards (Hemphill and Coons, 1957: 7; Locke and Latham, 1990); formulate achievable goals (Donelly et al., 1985: 362; Hersey and Blanchard, 1988: 86; Stogdill, 1950: 3); instigate future growth (Cohen, 1990: 9; Northouse, 2016); and inspire (Bass, 1985: 19–20; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Newport and Harter, 2016), and they are most often male (Shook and Sweet, 2018).

Alongside literature on leadership traits, competencies, and skills, a rich debate has developed on leaders’ behaviour and their interaction with their followers (leadership styles). Leadership style is a combination of traits, skills, and behaviours that leaders use as they interact with followers (Judge et al., 2002). Psychologists, led by Lewin, conducted research that provided the foundation for many styles of leadership that followed (Lewin et al., 1939). They identified the three well-known authentic leadership styles: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire (Table 1). The autocratic leadership style was characterised by hasty decision-making, with limited to no input or agreement required, whereas the democratic leadership style (often viewed as the opposite of the autocratic style), was best deployed when the leader needed to obtain buy-in from individuals. The laissez-faire leadership style encourages teamwork and collaboration and creates consensus.

In 1947, Max Weber expanded on the bureaucratic leadership style, where a leader applies rules rigorously and follows procedures accurately. In 1978, Burns introduced the transformational leadership style in his research on political leaders. Burns identifies two types of leadership: (i) transactional, where a leader influences others by what they offer in exchange (the transaction); and (ii) transformational, where a leader connects with followers such that the level of motivation and morale is raised (Table 1). Bass (1985) claims that it is not the individual traits and vision of the leader that matter as much, as they can influence the feelings, attitudes, and commitment of their followers. The leadership style will eventually determine the leadership approach to be applied to achieve leadership excellence, depending on the context and environment in which it is applied. In Table 1 the appropriate application of each of these styles is assumed.

Table 1.

Well-known leadership styles.

Leadership style	Application
Autocratic Lewin et al. (1939)	When decisions need to be made quickly when there is no need for input, and when an agreement is not necessary for a successful outcome.
Democratic Lewin et al. (1939)	When creativity and human engagement in projects and decisions are needed.
Laissez-faire (‘let them do’) Lewin et al. (1939)	When a need arises to allow freedom in how tasks are managed and executed.
Bureaucratic Weber (1947)	When input from other conflicts with practices and policies.
Transactional Burns (1978)	When roles and responsibilities are rewarded.
Transformational Burns (1978)	When the focus is on improvement and growth.

Authors’ compilation.

However, the purpose of this section is not to present the enormous number of theories that relates to leadership, nor is it to identify more or less effective leadership styles. Rather, it is to sketch leadership as we know it. According to Petrie (2014), in the past, leadership styles focused on the individual, what makes a good leader, and which characteristics should be developed for leaders to endure. The study of leadership, therefore, has focused on great leaders (Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and Mohandas Gandhi) who could command and inspire others. In the past 10 years, however, it has appeared as if those leaders who rely only on conventional leadership styles have become less efficient (‘doing the things right’) and effective (‘doing the right things’), and that those who exhibit innovative styles often considered untraditional achieve more success. Sustainability leadership, as described by Visser and Courtice (2011), is geared towards bringing about profound change, whether in political and economic systems, business models and practices, or in the broad social contract with stakeholders and society. This predicament appears to answer the question under investigation, namely that public leadership styles, as we know them, have reached the end of their shelf life. However, the debate is far from over.

Keeping in mind the challenges public leaders may face over the next decade

Without ever over-simplifying the meaning of public leadership, it can be explained as an act of leading a group of people or a country, an activity whereby human beings in a specific situation, at a specific time, and under certain circumstances are influenced to voluntarily follow the ideologies of that leader (Lues, 2019: 155). Hays and Christopher (2012) argue that in the future, leadership styles will be greatly influenced by four factors: technology, globalisation, knowledge workers, and diversity. Oberer and Alptekin (2018) argue that capabilities in the dimensions of data and connectivity, analytics and intelligence, conversion to the physical world, and human-machine interaction will become the determinants of leadership success. More recently, the World Economic Forum (WEF) 2019 Global Risks Report has grouped the risks that public leaders face into the categories of natural, technological, geopolitical, economic, and societal. It can be concluded that not all public leaders are deemed ready for the challenges they are likely to face over the next decade.

In light of the above, Chunoo and Osteen (2016) extend a call to higher education institutions to reclaim its role in leadership education. This is echoed by Iordanoglou (2018), who argues that leadership development has not proven adequately to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It is implied that a need exists for a paradigm shift in leadership development methods to prepare future public leaders to navigate an uncertain and complex world. The challenges of the 21st century have largely been intensified by volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environments (Kok and Jordaan, 2019). A VUCA environment reflects a state of the external world (that is, external to the public leader) characterised by ‘super-diversity and super mobility’ (Kok and Jordaan, 2019: 22). The constant pressure to lead, to be uncertain about the outcomes of your decisions, and even the fear of not being in control all the time are some of the hallmarks of a VUCA world (Lues, 2020: 130). A good way of thinking about this concept is to view it as the new way of living – the volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity inherent in today’s world. Hartley (2018: 204) states that it creates ‘white-water conditions for leadership’; that is, ‘context and conditions change rapidly’ and these are contexts ‘where the purposes and processes of leadership are not necessarily shared or understood’.

Vast technological innovations such as artificial intelligence, robotics, DNA sequencing, the internet of things, driverless vehicles, 3D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, big data, energy storage, material science, and quantum computing will dictate the strategies of public leaders over the next decade (Andrews, 2018). However, it should be noted that, already in 2005, Dunleavy et al. (2006: 467) clearly stated, ‘New Public Management is dead: Long live digital-era governance’. The mentioned technological innovations give rise to a virtual, automated, globalised, and digitalised world which calls for new leadership as well as skills or cognitive abilities like applying (complex) knowledge, searching for knowledge, creating new knowledge, or sharing/transmitting new knowledge (Wolf et al., 2018: 19). It is as if the one complexity gives rise to the next and the next, thus predicting a process where new technology and ways of thinking give rise to a virtual, automated, globalised, and digitalised world which, in turn, facilitates improved connectivity between people and signifies the importance of diversity management and cultural intelligence. Significantly, Carr (2016) suggests that public leaders need to understand that they can affect technology and not the other way around, and Johnson and Veldsman (2016) call for an alignment of technology, people, working modes, and strategic intent.

In an investigation of how public leadership styles are transforming under the impetus of the in the 21st century while simultaneously observing current world leaders, one soon realises that against this fast-moving pace and a VUCA world, it seems nearly impossible that one of two well-known leadership styles, that have set the tone thus far, will suffice. The contingency leadership theory argues that there is no single way of leading and that every leadership style should be based on certain situations. Conversely, it appears that the former narrowed boundaries of leadership styles need to expand (Baltacı and Balcı, 2017; Sae-Lim, 2019) to a less static and more flexible, often cross-functional activity with vague lines of authority. Thus, to address the question that guided the investigation (to what extent has public leadership as we know it reached the end of its shelf life?), it is concluded that public leadership styles have evolved away from the conventional way of leading. Public leadership leans more towards influencing rather than leading; focuses on mobilising organised groups (Andrews, 2018; Lues, 2019) rather than individuals; places emphasis on interpersonal relations (Newport and Harter, 2016); and influences people by unleashing the power and potential to make an impact ‘for the greater good’ (Andrews, 2018: 299). Public leaders in the 21st century, of course, further show concern for taking on technological challenges facing countries (Andrews, 2018: 305). However, without rejecting the importance of any traits mentioned by the researchers, honesty and compassion are still regarded as important traits, despite the emphasis that is placed on innovation and technology in the 21st century. According to Herold (2016), the core traditional leadership skills (being effective, being efficient, and inspiring others) are now considered the basic requirements (Herold, 2016).

Who is setting the pace for public leaders to transform under the impetus of the 21st century?

Setting the pace for all public leaders is the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which contains 17 SDGs and 169 targets. The SDGs apply to all countries in the world, irrespective of their development status. Baek (2019) expresses concern regarding the implantation of these agendas based on the sheer number of relevant goals (including 169 targets, 230 indicators as well as the 34 priority areas, 171 national targets, 85 continental targets, and 246 indicators of the Agenda 2063). Against these many targets, it is positively envisaged that the coming decade may well see an ideological renaissance in public leadership styles.

It is further anticipated that the growth in the world population will place an enormous responsibility on public leaders to bring about harmony in climate-human-ecosystem interactions and their implications for global environmental solutions (Ramutsindela and Mickler, 2019). The growth in the population will boost domestic demand and the size of the workforce and will lead to a world economy that could more than double in size by 2050 (World Economic Forum, 2019: 79). Governments, consequently, will have to implement structural reforms to improve their macroeconomic stability, infrastructure, and institutions (WEF, 2019: 10). In this regard, the importance of an informed (or educated) new generation cannot be emphasised enough (Vearey et al., 2019).

Tikly (2019) argues for education to be used as a vehicle to play a transformative role in sustainable development. Bearing in mind that the world is fundamentally inconsistent (variation in economies); that multiple certainties will arise (outbreak of the Corona pandemic); and that people will position and adapt according to their situations (such as global warming), public leaders must be adaptive, self-renewing, resilient and willing to learn (Lues, 2020: 139). The question of who is setting the pace for public leaders to learn and transform under the impetus of the 21st century is addressed threefold. First, Tikly (2019) recommends that public leaders should align education policy with global processes of economic, cultural, and political transformation. The achievement of sustainable development and creating public value depend on a clear, realistic and aligned policy that supports the integration and adaptation of the global goals to the local content (Lues, 2020: 139). Secondly, the idea was never for public leaders to do it on their own. The contributory effort of societies in taking on challenges needs to become more prominent, and public leaders need to (i) encourage participation, (ii) educate communities to contribute sustainably, and (iii) allow communities to take the lead in certain matters. Finally, in achieving strong interpersonal relationships, Covey (1996) advocates a transfer to a higher standard of leadership using an inside-out approach. This inside-out self-leadership approach is strongly reliant on the development of own values (such as human dignity, equality and freedom), as well as finding internal power. Burns (1978) refers to these as end values that cannot be negotiated. In support, Blanchard (2007) argues that the capacity to influence others should start with oneself (one must lead oneself before one can lead others).

Recommendations guiding public leadership styles for the 21st century

The British Council commissioned the Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) (University of Cambridge) to research leadership and leadership development. The intent was to inform the design of a new global programme to support future world leaders. The following discussion uses the recommendations made by the CISL (2017) review on ‘good leadership’, as a point of departure to support the aim of this article; that is, to investigate how public leadership is transforming under the impetus of the 21st century. A ‘good’ leader, as defined in the introduction of this article, creates public value (Andews, 2018) acts lawfully, accountably (CISL, 2017), efficiently, and effectively (WebFinance, 2020).

Recommendation 1: Reduce global socio-economic and environmental risks and enhance opportunities in the pursuit of sustainable development (CISL, 2017: 48).

The World Economic Forum (2019: 6) identified geopolitical and geo-economic tensions among the world’s major powers (e.g. the relationship between China and the United States) as the most urgent global risks in 2019. Moreover, the areas of concern highlighted in the 2019 Global Risks Perception Survey are (i) economic weaknesses, (ii) societal and political tensions, (iii) environmental frailties, and (iv) technological volatilities. These risks are seen as a result of weak governance by public leaders (The World Economic Forum, 2019: 9).

In order to lead in the 21st century, characterised by fast-changing times typical of a VUCA world, public leaders are challenged to become sophisticated in curtailing the impact of global socioeconomic and environmental risks. In this regard, Kok and Jordaan (2019: 22) emphasise the importance of competence in conflict management, dispute resolution, and judgement. Taking into account the depletion of resources and the aging population (Deloitte, 2018), public leaders also need to optimise opportunities; do more with less (Lues, 2019), and commit to a collective and sustainable societal good (Northouse, 2016). To take calculated risks (e.g. investing in technology) and create opportunities (e.g. stimulating economic growth) in the pursuit of sustainability, public leaders are compelled by the complexity leadership theory (a theory that is used to model interactions within complex systems) (Baltaci and Balci, 2017) to adapt and generate creative knowledge that exhibits sufficient significance and impact to create sustainability. Baltaci and Balci (2017) argue that complexity leadership is a product of three types of leadership: (i) administrative leadership based on strict control and having a significant bureaucratic hierarchy; (ii) adaptive leadership fundamentally based on creative problem solving and relating to new learning; and (iii) action-centred leadership that involves rapid and bold decision-making mechanisms employed in VUCA-related circumstances. In the pursuit of sustainable development, the transactional leadership theory, in an attempt to influence others by what leaders offer in exchange (Northouse, 2016), advocates that public leaders should not only be guided by the SDGs, but should understand and communicate ‘risks’ to society by adopting a learning approach, rather than seeking to command and control (CISL, 2017).

Recommendation 2: Foster ‘a “global” and a “systems” mindset’. Develop new leadership skills (CISL, 2017: 48).

The WEF Survey on the Global Agenda (WEF, 2019) is unambiguous about the preferred skill for a strong leader. Having a ‘global perspective’ (WEF, 2019) or a ‘global mindset’ (Javidan, 2010) is seen as important. A leader with a global mindset is one who is knowledgeable and appreciative of cultural, political, and economic systems in other countries and understands how their global industry works (Javidan, 2010). Although developing a global mindset will to an extent be possible in a national context, developing global norms might be a scuffle (WEF, 2019: 70).

According to Deloitte (2018), public leadership has become a social network commodity and, concomitantly, has become less formal, often creating a complex social system with many interrelated parts (typical characteristics of the systems theory approach). When changes are made to one part, many others are affected in a cascading and often unpredictable manner. The recent outbreak and spreading of the COVID-19 virus is a good example. To support this argument, Paxton and Frost (2018) propose using a systems thinking approach to train future leaders in global health. Systems thinking states that the thoughtless application of rules and procedures by leaders (still done by some conventional public leaders) can stifle innovation, hamper agility, and even destroy creativity.

Recommendation 3: Appreciate that, in terms of outcomes (e.g. sustainable development), certain leadership traits are valued more by different genders and generations (CISL, 2017: 48).

Contemporary society accepts the notion of a generation as a form of demarcation or association that is used to locate particular birth cohorts in specific historical and cultural circumstances and that have a collective set of attitudes, behaviours, ideas, memories, and life expectations (Herold, 2016). However, there are also psychological and sociological dimensions in the sense of belonging and identity that can define a generation, and these preferences are noted in the choices of respective societies when one looks at current public leaders. It is observed that while (i) there is still a large cohort of conventional, older public leaders (predominantly male) visible on world platforms, leading change from their own deeply embedded experienced dogma, there is nevertheless, in tandem, (ii) a younger cohort of public leaders (male and female) coming to the fore, leading change from a new, fearless ideology.

Recommendation 3 relates to responsible leadership (linked to the relationship theories) and focuses on a leader’s exchange with followers and society at large. Responsible leadership, a fairly new leadership approach, combines the essential qualities of three well-known leadership styles: transformational, servant, and authentic leadership (Sarkar, 2016: 10). Responsible public leaders need to appreciate differences within society and make an effort to reduce prejudice towards gender, religion, and marginalised groups, ultimately aiming to create social tolerance (Herold, 2016; Lues, 2019). Johnson and Veldsman (2016) refer to this as a common and shared value system that becomes part of a global value system aiming to enable diverse societies to collaborate for the benefit and common good of all.

Recommendation 4: Public leadership is also defined in terms of its process. It should not only acknowledge individuals with formal power but also consider the role of followers ( CISL, 2017: 48).

Relationship theories, as mentioned in Recommendation 3, focus on the connections formed between leaders and followers. Avolio et al. (2009) define this connectedness as shared leadership – a dynamic and interactive influence process among individuals for whom the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of goals. This dynamic and interactive process often involves peer or lateral influence and, at other times, involves upward or downward hierarchical influence (Avolio et al., 2009). O’Connor and Quinn (2004) refer to shared leadership as a property of the whole system when leadership becomes a product of those connections or relationships among the parts.

Recommendation 4 is supported by Veldsman and Johnson (2016), who argue that against rapidly changing needs, as well as changing products and markets, implementing shared leadership is essential. CSIL (2017: 48) refers in this context to the role of ‘policy entrepreneurs’, who can work across territories and build wide-ranging partnerships (Nunez, 2016). In support of relationships, the participative leadership theories suggest that the ideal leadership style is one that takes the input of others into account. These leaders encourage participation and contributions by helping group members see the importance and higher good of the task (Bushe and Marshak, 2016). Leaders with this style often have high ethical and moral standards.

Recommendation 5: Public leadership (in a political or policy context) would benefit from applying public value, legitimacy, and capability (CISL, 2017: 48).

Public leaders assume an authoritative and responsible position, which refers, inter alia, to the control that a leader exercises over resources to create public value (Lues, 2019). In this pursuit, the public value theory is seen as an analytical framework for observing how public leaders attend to the ethical and public value problems affecting governance (Andrews, 2018). When pursuing the creation of public value, the importance of contextual factors such as ‘political ideology, economic challenges, historical events, and international agendas’ (CISL, 2017: 49) needs to be accounted for, as all the mentioned factors have an impact on public value to a certain extent. Andrews (2018) discusses the important role of public leadership and the construction of public value in the age of the algorithm and ‘big data’, and concludes that technological change remains under-researched in the public management domain. This is, of course, a concern, as technological challenges facing public leaders are not only growing in complexity (Andrews, 2018: 305) but also directly add to public value.

Of importance here is to acknowledge the future contribution of digital literacy (Sae-Lim, 2019) and digital leadership (a fast and cooperative approach, with a strong focus on innovation) (Oberer and Alptekin, 2018). The capability and the mindset of the public leader are critical dimensions for adding public value in the 21st century. Oberer and Alptekin (2018) propose that ‘Design Thinking’ (a term used to describe the ability to solve complex problems and find desirable solutions) and a ‘design mindset’ (referring to a solution-focused and action-oriented approach) will become crucial in creating a preferred future.

Recommendation 6: Public leaders need to develop the ability to ‘read the context’ (CISL, 2017: 49).

Although it might have been anticipated that leaders in the 21st century concern themselves with new concerns, such as COVID-19 or global issues (captured in the 17 SDGs), some concerns remain on the agenda, such as poverty, hunger, disease, promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability (Lues, 2019: 164). However, public leaders need to develop the ability to ‘read the context’ as now, maybe more than ever, geo-cultural contexts play an important role and determine how public leadership styles are perceived as successful or not (CISL, 2017: 49). Migration, for example, has triggered political disruption in many countries in recent years. It is evident from this political disruption that when public leaders make decisions in different cultures, it should be expected that some stark differences will result. Similarly, unconventional technologies used in one country will be unacceptable in others. The WEF (2019: 89) refers to examples such as the use of fracking, hormone-treated beef, and genetically modified seeds.

In some contexts (countries), more autocratic leadership styles are accepted and preferred. Despite this variation in preference, the charismatic/values-based leadership, which creates an emotional response (strongly linked with transformational leadership), is universally preferred (CISL, 2017: 49). No matter which leadership style is preferred by a public leader, his/her ability to ‘read the context’ and apply the style relevant to the particular circumstance will safeguard long-term sustainability in the VUCA world (Sarkar, 2016: 10).

Recommendation 7: Rely on a hybrid model of leadership development, focusing on knowledge, values, and skills (CISL, 2017: 49).

Leitch and Volery (2017) refer to entrepreneurial leadership that involves setting clear goals, creating opportunities, and empowering societies. Cogliser and Brigham (2004) note that an entrepreneurial leader not only recognises opportunities but is also able to marshal the resources needed to reach the potential of that opportunity. According to Ireland et al. (2003), entrepreneurial leadership is the ability to influence others and to manage resources strategically to emphasise both opportunity-seeking and advantage-seeking behaviours. Pietersen (2016) is of the opinion that entrepreneurial leadership may help to empower people and improve knowledge and skills in general.

Many of the problems of the 21st century were not previously experienced or did not exist before. Today, public leaders need to drive rapid change, manage team members from different generations, innovate, anticipate changes, be agile enough to deal with disruptive technologies, and be hyper-competitive. Today’s public leaders, therefore, must behave differently, as they need to acquire the essential practical skills and knowledge to thrive in the knowledge-driven 21st-century global economy. For instance, they need to have communication skills (create trust, take action, support diversity), predictive skills (predict future situations and be prepared to adapt), cognitive skills (complex problem solving, critical thinking, as well as decision making), networking and collaboration skills (build networks and bring societies together), and digital literacy skills (Sae-Lim, 2019) to become skilled change agents who can give persuasive reasons to get followers to support their agenda.

Recommendation 8: Develop the underlying mindsets, motivations, values, and character that will encourage young leaders to strive for positive global impact (CISL, 2017: 49).

Forsyth and Maranga (2018) state that leaders today need to display compassion, dignity, love, and caring. Booysen (2016) recommends human-oriented leadership, where the emphasis is on leaders being supportive, considerate, emphatically oriented, compassionate, and generous towards others. Capabilities of human-oriented leadership may also include deep thinking, humility, integrity, active listening, and caring (Johnson and Veldsman, 2016). To be a human-oriented leader, leaders need to be self-aware (knowing oneself well enough to know what one’s strong points as well as development points are) (Forsyth and Maranga, 2018). A challenge is also set to change oneself and become better aligned with what is necessary for future leaders in the global economy to survive and thrive in the future (Forsyth and Maranga, 2018).

Transformational leaders need to raise the level of motivation and morality of society. Lemoine et al. (2019) have found that ethical, authentic, and servant leadership are distinct in their emphasis on compliance with normative standards, self-awareness, and stakeholders, respectively. Ethical leadership, taking into consideration moral consistency, therefore focuses on compliance with normative standards to hold the public accountable (Lemoine et al., 2019: 150). Authentic leadership, fostering self-development through self-awareness, and servant leadership both create valued outcomes for multiple stakeholders (Lemoine et al., 2019: 156). Lemoine et al. (2019: 175) state that moral leadership styles logically coincide with leaders who make moral decisions, but they caution that the concept of what is moral can be subjective. Nevertheless, they conclude that moral leadership behaviours matter and have a positive impact (Herold, 2016: 12; Lemoine et al., 2019: 177).

Public leaders who understand how to adapt institutional frameworks to deliver integrated policies that address existing interlinkages among the SDGs effectively will be critical to achieving progress. Broadly speaking, promoting integration implies finding ways to foster cooperation and common understanding among generations at all levels, dealing with closely interrelated issues (United Nations Global Compact, 2018).

Concluding remarks

The 17 SDGs place the focus on public leadership (or lack thereof) when it comes to success in achieving these goals. It could even be argued that the mentioned focus areas captured in the SDGs are, in themselves, symptomatic of poor leadership in the world. Pursuing the SDGs in the 21st century demands a renewed look at leadership styles, decision-making processes, and ways of rendering services to communities (Gil-Garcia et al., 2018). This article aimed to question the relevance of well-known public leadership styles to the 21st century and posed the question: to what extent have public leadership styles, as we know them, reached the end of their shelf life?

Leadership has been defined referring to aspects such as compliance, influencing, and achieving objectives, while characteristics were identified such as having a vision, setting clear and high standards to formulate achievable goals, instigating future growth, and inspiring. From this section four conclusions were drawn: (i) the leadership style of the public leader will eventually determine the leadership approach to be applied, depending on the context and environment in which it is applied; (ii) in the past, public leadership styles focused on the individual and what makes a good leader; (iii) public leaders who rely only on conventional ways styles of leading have become less efficient; and (iv) public leaders who exhibit innovative styles, often considered untraditional, achieve more success.

With regard to the challenges public leaders are likely to face over the next decade, it was noted that in the future, public leadership styles will be greatly influenced by (i) technology, (ii) globalisation, (iii) knowledge workers, and (iv) diversity. It was shown that a need exists for a paradigm shift in leadership development to prepare future public leaders to navigate a VUCA environment. Taking the vastness of the challenges into consideration, it is concluded that (i) there is no single leadership style and approach that dominates; (ii) public leadership styles have evolved away from the conventional way of leading; (iii) public leadership leans more towards influencing societies; and (iv) honesty and compassion are still regarded as important leadership traits despite the emphasis that is placed on innovation and technology.

Setting the pace for all public leaders is the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development however, it was acknowledged that the growth in the world population will place an enormous responsibility on public leaders to bring about harmony in climate–human–ecosystem interactions. Against this reality, the contributory effort of societies in taking on challenges needs to become more prominent, and public leaders need to (i) encourage participation, (ii) educate communities to contribute sustainably, and (iii) allow communities to take the lead in certain matters.

As a point of departure to support the aim of this article, to question the relevance to the 21st century of well-known public leadership styles, eight recommendations made by the CISL 2017 review on good leadership were used. Recommendation 1 was based on reducing global socioeconomic and environmental risks and enhancing opportunities in the pursuit of sustainable development. Here the leadership styles based on the complexity leadership theory as well the transactional leadership theory were recognised. Recommendation 2 called on public leaders to foster ‘a “global” and a “systems” mindset’ and develop new leadership skills grounded in the systems thinking style of leadership. Recommendation 3 reiterated the importance of appreciating differences within society and making an effort to reduce prejudice, ultimately aiming to create a global value system that enables diverse societies to collaborate for the benefit and common good of all. The Responsible leadership theory is acknowledged here as a new, but important influence on leadership style. Recommendation 4 acknowledged the role of shared leadership and of connections and relationships among parts. Recommendation 5 supported the notion that public leadership would benefit from applying public value, legitimacy, and capability. It was noted that digital leadership is seen as a critical dimension for adding public value in the 21st century. Recommendation 6 emphasised the importance of public leaders who are able to ‘read the context’, as geo-cultural contexts play an important role and determine whether or not public leadership styles are perceived as successful. It was noted that the charismatic/values-based leadership, creating an emotional response, is universally preferred. Recommendation 7 referred to entrepreneurial leadership that involves setting clear goals, creating opportunities, and empowering societies. An entrepreneurial leader needs to have communication skills, predictive skills, networking and collaboration skills, and digital literacy skills. Recommendation 8 reflected on human-oriented leadership, which requires public leaders today to display compassion, dignity, love, and caring.

It is anticipated that there will be other opinions to the arguments made in this article. This will be welcomed, as discussion about public leadership styles to sustainability is much needed. It is believed that younger generations have already made valid contributions and have shown that they are serious when it comes to taking part in making future decisions.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Liezel Lues

References

Andrews

(2018) Public administration, public leadership and the construction of public value in the age of the algorithm and ‘big data’. Public Administration 97: 296–310.

Avolio

Walumbwa

Weber

(2009) Leadership: current theories, research and future directions. The Annual Review of Psychology 60: 421–449.

Baek

(2019) Cooperating in Africa’s sustainable structural transformation: policymaking capacity and the role of emerging economies. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. Available at: https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3397558 (accessed 20 April 2020).

Baltaci

Balci

(2017) Complexity leadership: a theoretical perspective. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management 5(1): 30–58.

Bass

(1985) Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.

Blanchard

(2007) Leading at a Higher Level. Edinburgh: Pearson.

Booysen

(2016) Leadership excellence across cultural settings. In: Veldsman

Johnson

(eds) Leadership Perspectives from the Front Line. Randburg: KR Publishing, pp. 361–381.

Burns

(1978) Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Bushe

Marshak

(2016) The dialogic mindset: leading emergent change in a complex world. Organization Development Journal 34(1): 37–65.

10.

Carr

(2016) US Power and the Internet in International Relations: The Irony of the Information Age. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

11.

Chunoo

Osteen

(2016) Purpose, mission, and context: the call for educating future leaders. New Directions for Higher Education 174: 9–20.

12.

Cogliser

Brigham

(2004) The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: mutual lessons learned. The Leadership Quarterly 15(6): 771–799.

13.

Cohen

(1990) The Art of a Leader. New Jersey: Jossey-Bass.

14.

Conger

Kanungo

(1987) Toward a behavioural theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management 12: 637–647.

15.

Covey

(1996) Principle Centered Leadership. Sydney: Simon and Schuster.

16.

Deloitte (2018) The rise of the social enterprise: 2018 Deloitte global human capital trends. Available at: https://www.deloitte.com (accessed 20 April 2020).

17.

Donelly

Ivancevich

Gibson

(1985) Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes, 5th edn. Plano, TX: Business Publications Inc.

18.

Dunleavy

Margetts

Bastow

, et al. (2006) New public management is dead: long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 467–494.

19.

Forsyth

Maranga

(2018) The spirit of leadership: past, present and future. Journal of Leadership, Accountability & Ethics 15(2): 66–72.

20.

Gaunt

(2006) How to tell it straight. NZ Management 53: 4–6.

21.

Gil-Garcia

Dawes

Pardo

(2018) Digital government and public management research: finding the crossroads. Public Management Review 20: 633–646.

22.

Hartley

(2018) Ten propositions about public leadership. International Journal of Public Leadership 14(4): 202–217.

23.

Hays

Christopher

(2012) Transforming Leadership for the 21st Century. Bloomington: Xlibris Corporation.

24.

Hemphill

Coons

(1957) Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In: Stogdill

Coons

(eds) Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, pp. 6–38.

25.

Herold

(2016) Leadership in the fourth industrial revolution. Available at: https://www.stantonchase.com (accessed 16 April 2020).

26.

Hersey

Blanchard

(1988) Management of Organizational Behavior, 5th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

27.

Iordanoglou

(2018) Future trends in leadership development practices and the crucial leadership skills. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics 15(2): 118–129.

28.

Ireland

Hitt

Sirmon

(2003) A model of strategic entrepreneurship: the construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management 29(6): 963–989.

29.

Javidan

(2010) Bringing the global mindset to leadership. Harvard Business Review Blog Network Available at: https://hbr.org/2010/05/bringing-the-global-mindset-to.html.

30.

Johnson

Veldsman

(2016) Looking ahead. In: Veldsman

Johnson

(eds) Leadership Perspectives from the Front Line. Randburg: KR Publishing, pp. 869–879.

31.

Judge

Ilies

Bono

, et al. (2002) Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4): 765–780.

32.

Katz

Kahn

(1978) Leadership Practices in Relation to Productivity and Morale. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan: Institute for Social Research.

33.

Kok

Jordaan

(2019) The metanarraphors we lead and mediate by: insights from cognitive metaphor theory in the context of mediation in a VUCA world. In: Kok

van den Heuvel

(eds) Leading in a VUCA World: Integrating Leadership, Discernment and Spirituality. Switzerland: Springer, pp. 1–26.

34.

Leitch

Volery

(2017) Entrepreneurial leadership: insights and directions. International Small Business Journal 35(2): 13–19.

35.

Lemoine

Hartnell

Leray

(2019) Taking stock of moral approach to leadership: an integrative review of ethical, authentic, and servant leadership. Academy of Management Annals 13(1): 148–187.

36.

Lewin

Lippitt

White

(1939) Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology 10(12): 271–301.

37.

Locke

Latham

(1990) A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

38.

Lues

(2019) Peace leadership in the public and private sectors. In: van Zyl

Campbell

(eds) Peace Leadership: Self-Transformation to Peace. Randburg: KR Publishing, pp. 361–381.

39.

Lues

(2020) South Africa’s surviving VUCA environments. In: van Zyl

Campbell

Lues

(eds) Chaos is a Gift. Leading Oneself in Uncertain and Complex Environments. Randburg: KR Publishing, pp. 129–141.

40.

Newport

Harter

(2016) Leadership traits most-related to voting for presidential candidates. Available at: https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/191231/leadership-traits-related-voting-presidential-candidates.aspx (accessed 16 April 2020).

41.

Northouse

(2016) Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage.

42.

Nunez

(2016) Bridging the 21st-century leadership gap: emerging development practices. In: EDU7209 Introduction to Doctoral Studies. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/30543240/Bridging_the… (accessed 16 April 2020).

43.

Oberer

Alptekin

(2018) Leadership 4.0: digital leaders in the age of Industry 4.0. International Journal of Organizational Leadership 7(4): 404–412.

44.

O’Connor

Quinn

(2004) Organisational capacity for leadership. In: McCauley

(ed.) The Centre for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 417–437.

45.

Paxton

Frost

(2018) Using systems thinking to train future leaders in global health. Global Public Health 13(9): 1287–1295.

46.

Petrie

(2014) Future Trends in Leadership Development. White Paper: Centre for Creative Leadership. Colorado Springs: Colorado.

47.

Pietersen

(2016) Entrepreneurial leadership. In: van Zyl

(ed.) Leadership in the African Context. Cape Town: Juta and Co, pp. 246–269.

48.

Ramutsindela

Mickler

(2019) Global Goals and African Development. Africa and the Sustainable Development Goals. Switzerland: Springer.

49.

Sae-Lim

(2019) Leadership competence in turbulent environment. Journal of MCU Peace Studies 7(6): 1525–1540.

50.

Sarkar

(2016) We live in a VUCA world: the importance of responsible leadership. Development and Learning Organizations 30(3): 9–12.

51.

Shook

Sweet

(2018) When she rises, we all rise. Getting to equal 2018: creating a culture where everyone thrives. Available at: https://www.accenture.com/research (accessed 20 April 2020).

52.

Stogdill

(1950) Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology 25: 35–71.

53.

The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) (2017) Global Definitions of Leadership and Theories of Leadership Development: Literature review. A Report Commissioned by the British Council. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership.

54.

Tikly

(2019) Education for sustainable development in Africa: a critique of regional agendas. Asia Pacific Education Review 20(2): 223–237.

55.

United Nations Global Compact (2017) 2017 United Nations Global Compact Progress Report: Business Solutions to Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations.

56.

United Nations Global Compact (2018) Working Together: Integration, Institutions and the Sustainable Development Goals. World Public Sector Report 2018. New York: United Nations.

57.

Vearey

Luginaah

Magitta

(2019) Urban health in Africa: a critical global public health priority. BMC Public Health 19(1): 340.

58.

Veldsman

Johnson

(2016) Leadership. Perspectives from the Front Line. Randburg: KR Publishing.

59.

Visser

Courtice

(2011) Sustainability leadership: linking theory and practice. Working Paper Series, 21 October 2011. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1947221 (accessed 6 September 2020).

60.

Weber

(1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. New York: Oxford University Press.

61.

WebFinance (2020) Business dictionary. Available at: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/effectiveness.html (accessed 6 April 2020).

62.

Wolf

Kleindienst

Ramsauer

, et al. (2018) Current and future industrial challenges: demographic change and measures for elderly workers in Industry 4.0. International Journal of Engineering 16(1): 67–76.

63.

World Economic Forum (2019) The Global Risks Report 2019. Geneva: World Economic Forum.