Yes, it is definitely time to reconsider and re-examine existing theories of leadership. The world is undergoing rapid and unprecedented change, with new challenges emerging in technology, geopolitics, social dynamics, and the environment. In this context, traditional leadership theories may no longer be sufficient to address the evolving needs of organizations and societies.

I have an interest in Digital Leadership. I think this type of leadership will be prominent in the fourth and fifth Industrial revolution and the new generation of Leaders.

People of any country in past or present have never looked for Leaders. In fact people globally have a uncanny talent to sniff out scoundrels, liars , cheats, double faced hypocrites and elect them . Germany India USA are examples of past and present. Leadership is mere a slogan to fool employees and people . I agree that all theories are mere whitewash attempt to cover organized loot . Leaders hip has basically two components, your samskara and the genetic make up. Leaders are basically born and shown direction by super power.

The concept of "leader" corresponds to a mental model. And mental models are encapsulated in individual's brains. So, each individual has a different "ideal model" of what a leader is. My stake would be that there are too-many leaders, not a scarcity, providing that so many people believe in their own capacity to lead, "knowing" of course what is a good leader and what is best for the world (but in fact themself...).

Thinking takes different nuanced shapes. But cultural and cognitive norms express the dominant paradigm. According to this normative paradigm, scholars defined thresholds of neuro-divergence. Neuro-divergent people are people who think different from the norm.

Our social normative thoughts governed the trajectory of humanity. If one thinks this trajectory requires corrections, one has to consider the normative paradigm to be responsible for this. As Einstein supposed quote says: "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." So, who is thinking differently?

Our social and cultural system dynamics tends to exclude neuro-divergent people. Not only neuro-divergents, but all people that stand out of the norms. If we were more inclusive (I mean not DEI-Washing, like so many corporates are Green-Washing, but truly inclusive -- DEI standing for Diversity Equity Inclusion Culture), we would pay more attention to what Stand-Out-of-Norm people have to say.

I would bet that there stand the leaders that can help co-creating a better future.

In the modern macro environment, they are suitable for application in terms of leadership, strategic and innovative leadership, and Theory U (Scharmer, 2007). The context shaped by the organization's culture should be addressed.

Most leadership theory have their foundation in the old theory. International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI identify no information or technology can change an inherent wicked manager to a good one. Shamz Tabrizi argues that a change of attitude is needed in turbulent times. A theory of leadership needed in present time is the one that can change human sinful nature to heavenly minded one.

Organizations that focus on 'building leaders' before hiring or attracting leaders are less likely to have a scarcity issue. Leadership is very much a skill that can be learned, but some individuals have strengths or personality types that make learning leadership skills easier. Situational Leadership, in practice, seems to work best of all the leadership theories. *Please note, I'm a practitioner, not a researcher.

I think it is necessary to take into account the less obvious aspects such as diplomas or experience and to connect to some subtle aspects. And here I have in mind emotional and spiritual intelligence.

Rajan Johri , I don't agree with this observation . What there are is perhaps none or existence of different levels of influence in perceived leaders. Leadership is about influence and if you don't have it or you have dismal level of influence , chances of one being a good leader diminishes. Its equally important to note that some of the great leaders in the world did very bad things because of the enormous influence they had on their subjects . Talk of the Rwandan genocide, German gas chambers , maji-maji rebellion in Tanzania and the man of god who influenced others to drink poison in USA. In all these , the yardstick was the levels of influence. So its not about scarcity but the levels of influence on part of leaders.

"There they go... I must hasten after them, for I am their leader" Anon.

Firstly I would question the assumption that there is a scarcity of leaders in the world. Is there evidence for this? Business, Governments, the military, businesses and business schools are developing thousands of leaders a year. The Global leadership development business is worth over $50B a year. As for theories, the work of Kouzes and Posner and John Adair have stood the test of time as has the work of Zenger and Folkman. Theories that have proven less resilient are those that are trait based or 'great man' theories which have proven less able to recognise that leadership is a learned talent.

There is no shortage of leaders - there is great shortage of GOOD leaders. The reasons for this in my opinions are 1) that humans are neurologically wired to appreciate the leaders we needed in the stone age - ie. tribal leaders with power and total authority, and 2) the process for selecting and developing leaders in today's complex world is not fit for purpose.

With colleagues, I have spent the last 20+ years testing theories, researching and developing programs to produce the leaders we need in the 21st century. They need to be emotionally intelligent but that is not enough! They need to have great values but some of the important ones like fairness, patience, humility, forgiveness, and kindness or care are not usually on the list! And finally we need leaders who operate beyond their ego. The "Catch 22" is that the many potentially great leaders who have a low ego, humility, etc. are not chosen for the top jobs because they don't promote themselves (which is their only failing). Most of today's top leaders were great at getting to the top but very few are good once they get to the top.

We have developed a Transpersonal Leadership Journey to help potentially great leaders develop the skills to get to the top and and perform excellently when they get there! See https://www.leadershapeglobal.com/lbte-second-edition

Yes, the scarcity of leaders worldwide calls for a reevaluation of leadership theories. New models should focus on:

This reflects the need for flexible leaders capable of tackling modern challenges.

That is an interesting point of view. I would say that with social media, many influencers can be considered leaders due to their impact on communities. However, influencers are not comparable with world leaders such as Nelson Madela or Florence Nightingale (not to mention that women leaders are less frequent and unfortunately less remembered). Existing leadership theries allow for the existence of team or company leaders, but perhaps theories should ba adopted to reflect the changes needed to become Churchil of our time, reflecting on the digital technologies and acess to information. The included graph shows world leaders in regard to leadership theories.

John Knights . Hello, good post. I'm interested in why you think that the process for selecting and developing leaders in today's complex world is not fit for purpose?

Hi Crispin Garden-Webster . Great question which I'll try to answer briefly but takes a book to answer in full :-)!

Regarding selecting leaders: organisations tend to favour traditional leadership characteristics of self-confidence, assertiveness, influence and achievement, which, without the good values to temper them, may regress to high-ego, aggression, manipulation and ruthlessness, and an obsession for total control. It is unusual for selection process to focus on good values except in a general sense and gut feeling.

Regarding developing leaders: The general approach of developing leaders is really a focus on providing good management (strategy, process, structures and measurement) which is important as tools but not enough to be a good leader. This requires good emotional intelligence (provided by a few leadership development programmes) but that is not enough either as EI can be used manipulatively. It also requires what we call spiritual intelligence which adds ethics to rational intelligence and care / kindness to emotional intelligence. It requires leaders to think beyond themselves and beyond the ego - for the greater good - and for all stakeholders . Hence the title of our book and what we call the leaders we develop, "Transpersonal".

Hope this provides a quick summary of our thinking. Also see www.leadershapeglobal.com

Regards

John

Hi Marharyta Ratushniak Marharyta Ratushn. Really nice chart. My question is how many of these are US based theories of leadership? The result of popular US based theories in the US is the richest country in the world - with great people and a great place to live (if you have enough money). Yet amongst democracies they are also one of the most polarised, unequal, unhappy, money & self focused oriented countries with the highest rates of murder and incarceration. We have to decide what we want and perhaps develop theories that might provide what we need in a world where ultimately climate change is our biggest threat for future generations.

John Knights Yes similarly the narrative on generational differences. A concept that despite the enthusiastic social media traffic and consulting coin, is overcooked, particularly out of the US, and bereft of any empirical study or data. The narrative dreamed up by marketers at the end of the 20th century casually collects a diverse bunch of people together based simply on the decade of birth, bluntly conflating age effects with cohort effects.

Under this meme (it doesn't meet the criteria for theory), decade of birth - any year it is assumed that someone born in the US will have had similar lived experience to someone in any other country; Kenya, New Zealand, Japan or Colombia. It ignores socio-economic status, gender identification, political stability, family background, climate and goodness knows what other DEI and cohort effects that are in play.

Now generations by decades have some shared experiences; war, pandemics, social unrest etc. though everyone's experience is different. Stereotype by decade of birth is like the early 18th century Austrian Völkertafel, where nationality was used to make assertions on character. Highly problematic that Chuck Schmitz, 18 from New Bedford MA United States behaves the same way towards his parents and shares the same values toward society as Alisha Smith 19 from Wollongong, NSW Australia.

Crispin Garden-Webster Agreed re generations! Of course there are differences between generations - and there always has been. When I was in my twenties (50 years ago) my managers and leaders had difficulty in understanding me and others of my generation. The answer for leaders is to accept there are differences along all the axes you mention and then deal with the individual. In my experience, the best way to do that is to demonstrate true empathy, and my using a coaching style of leadership help individuals find their own way and answers.

Interestingly, when we assess leaders on an EI basis, we find their competence is neutral from a geographic basis but that women "on average" are better than men. We have not yet done the analysis on generation - which is difficult because on average the higher the level, the older the person.

Rajan Johri

The perception of a global scarcity of leaders invites us to critically re-evaluate traditional leadership theories and their relevance in today’s fast-paced, complex world. While foundational theories such as transformational leadership, servant leadership, and authentic leadership have demonstrated enduring value, others rooted in rigid hierarchies or trait-based determinism may no longer suffice for our interconnected and dynamic global context.

Transformational leadership remains particularly resilient because it emphasizes vision, inspiration, and the capacity to mobilize people toward meaningful change. Similarly, servant leadership's focus on empathy, community-building, and ethical guidance has gained renewed importance in an era that values inclusivity and purpose. Authentic leadership, which stresses self-awareness and transparency, is increasingly aligned with the demand for trust and credibility in a world rife with misinformation and rapid change.

Conversely, theories that prioritize command-and-control dynamics or assume static personality traits as prerequisites for leadership have shown their limitations. These models often fail to account for adaptability, collaborative decision-making, and the growing importance of emotional intelligence. As we confront global challenges such as climate change, inequality, and technological disruption, there is an urgent need to develop leadership pipelines that are agile, inclusive, and contextually grounded.

To "make leaders at a faster pace," educational institutions, organizations, and governments may need to adopt a developmental view of leadership—one that sees leadership as a practice rather than a position, nurtured through mentorship, experience, reflection, and cross-disciplinary learning. Ultimately, revisiting and evolving leadership theory is not just a scholarly exercise; it is essential for equipping humanity with the leaders it needs.

The growing leadership vacuum suggests it’s time to reassess traditional leadership theories, focusing on adaptability, inclusivity, and ethical leadership, and to integrate modern contexts such as digital transformation, climate change, and sociopolitical complexity.

Thank you Israa, John, Chuck, Crispin, Kwang and Marharyta for your answer to my question. I look forward to your continued association.

I am currently developing a model of leadership that has four key elements: Awareness of Self, Understanding Others, Relating with the Context and Orientation to Serve. I am adding elements that constitute each of them. I seek your inputs on these. I would also like you to share your brief profile so that I may acknowledge you in our School of Leadership. My email is [email protected]

With regards to each of you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Rajan, for your kind communication and appreciation of our contributions.

We truly welcome your initiative to develop a leadership model that focuses on self-awareness, understanding others, contextual interaction, and a service-oriented approach.

I am very pleased with this vision and look forward to learning more about these elements.

I will prepare a brief summary of my thoughts and suggestions regarding them and will share it with you via email soon, God willing.

With sincere appreciation and respect,

Israa Abdulnabi Nayef

Ministry of Education, Iraq

Hi Rajan

Happy to associate. I'll send you an email. In the meantime see attachment for our model of Transpersonal Leadership Learning. Regards