I believe the future of leadership is largely embedded in discussions of new world of work where there is a growing shift towards nontraditional arrangements as incarnated in gig economy and its constituents (freelancers, independent contractors, flexibility, Uberization etc). In a sharing economy of the sort, leadership will inevitably become more distributed, and highly decentralized with a greater emphasis on empowering, supporting, coaching and mentoring followers or let me say coworkers, for purposes of employing a non-hierarchical language. There is a growing need for inclusion even despite the sweeping forces of rising nationalism particularly during the pandemic, compulsory closure of borders, Islamophobia and xenophobia among others, as our world and labor markets are unprecedentedly heterogenous with regard to diversity (age, gender, ethnicity, eating habits, ideologies, etc)... I have recently read an opinion piece called Four Futures by Peter Frase where there is a discussion of four possible futures as alternatives to the current deadlock of capitalism/democracy. These potential futures or a combination of them will be shaping what sort of leaders will survive to best fit.

Deniz Dirik, discussions about the future of leadership hark back to theoretical debates about the post-bureaucratic organization in the 1990s but have indeed been given added urgency by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the traditional workplace and the rise of the gig economy.

I too enjoyed Four Futures: Life After Capitalism (Frase, 2016). The four scenarios that Frase (2016) described, namely, (a) Communism: Equality and abundance; (b) Rentism: Hierarchy and abundance; (c) Socialism: Equality and scarcity; and (d) Exterminism: Hierarchy and scarcity, are presented as simplified "ideal types" to let the reader focus on specific issues by setting others aside. Fraser (2016) acknowledged that "real life" is always more complicated. Personally, I do not see how the historical experience of communism led to equality and abundance. That said, elements of what Fraser (2016) alluded to are already present in society, even if they are not evenly (or widely) distributed. All the more reason, then, to ponder the nature and function of leadership in our transforming organizations.

Regarding next steps, Udo Thelen neatly framed the artificial dilemma of choosing between agile management approaches that focus primarily on improving the performance of the workforce (and processes) and those that are based on humanistic notions of purpose, well-being, etc. I agree that leadership in new work environments is likely to be more distributed and diverse than that dichotomy suggests.

Oliver: I have been researching this topic for 22 years! It involved spending hundreds of hours with leaders managers as they attempt to develop requisite organisational agility. I find that there are 11 priorities for senior managers, which are:

1. Build an agile-friendly Top Management Team

2. Define their organisation’s Agility Ambition

3. Select the optimal types of agile management structures and processes

4. Embed effective integrating mechanisms

5. Adopt an agility-oriented organisational personality

6. Relentlessly unblock blockages

7. Promote optimistic discourse

8. Take fast go, no-go decisions

9. Sponsor a salon culture (to ensure that there is deep consideration of which opportunities to grasp).

10. Acquire individuals with grit and talent

11. Exploit multiple technologies

(if you want to cite this list it is on page 48 of ''Exploiting Agility for Advantage: A Step-by-Step Process for Acquiring Requisite Organisational Agility' by David L Francis, 2020).

It is important to realise that requisite agility is required and it is possible for an organisation to be excessively agile or to use dysfunctional managerial modalities. Leaders in agile enterprises adopt seven principles that are:

1.Not all organisations need to be equally agile.

2.Being agile is not the only thing that organisations need to do.

3.Leading an agile organisation needs a distinctive set of competencies.

4.Adopting the wrong type of agility can be dysfunctional.

5.The sub-units of an organisation need distinctive pathways for operationalising agility as ‘one size does not fit all’.

6.Remaining requisitely agile is a continuous journey.

7.Agility can be lost as well as gained.

I would very much like to read your dissertation. Especially if your findings are different from mine.

My email is [email protected]

David Louis Francis very interesting !

David Louis Francis, thank you for sharing your list of priority managerial actions for developing agility, and for the vital clarification that "requisite" agility tops all. I do hope your book offers advice (perhaps, a roadmap) to help organizations define what requisite ability they might require. I see that the said book was published in late 2020. Did the impacts that the COVID-19 pandemic immediately had on the workplace lead you to make last-minute alterations to the text? Put differently, which of the arguments in your book did the COVID-19 pandemic's impacts on the world of work confirm? My dissertation is on Leading Organizations of the Future, with a (now ancient) concept paper at Research Proposal Research Concept Paper for Leading Organizations of the Future

Article Information and Communication Technology in Organizations: A...

As posts like David Louis Francis point out, nothing really has changed in "Leadership" requirements. It is always a competitive advantage, and not all organizations have the same capabilities at the same time. Many do not keep the same ones or levels over time either. Whether we incorporate terms like "agile" into them or not, the fundamental characteristics of leadership (vs. management) have not changed in millennia.

Thanks for the question Oliver. You asked me "Did the impacts that the COVID-19 pandemic immediately had on the workplace lead you to make last-minute alterations to the text?" Rightly or wrongly the answer is "no". I took the decision that I would use Covid 19 as an example of a radical shift (perhaps temporary) in the landscapes of available opportunities and threats but, in essence, Covid 19 is no different than a war, a radical new technology or a major shift in political philosophies (for example, the change in fortunes in Venezuela, once the richest country in South America, after radical socialism was adopted has been far more extensive than the impact of the virus).

You asked me if my "book offers advice (perhaps, a roadmap) to help organizations define what requisite ability they might require". The answer is 'yes'. There is a seven step work programme for agility-orientated organisation development described in detail.

I hope that you find this useful. Please keep in contact. My email address is [email protected]

Many thanks for the clarifications, David Louis Francis. I see that the seven steps you propose to discern and acquire requisite organizational agility entail (a) orientating, (b) predicting, (c) diagnosing, (d) envisioning, (e) scoping, (f) customizing, and (g) delivering, presumably with feedback mechanisms for ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and recalibration (so the process is not unduly linear).

That's correct Oliver. The way that I laid out the structure for facilitating agility-orientated organisation development in my book is as a step-by-step approach, beginning with 'orientation' that provides sufficient depth of understanding of the construct of organisational agility for managers to undertake the subsequent steps in an informed way (I have found that few managers have more than a relatively superficial view of what agility is and is not, meaning that they do not have a strong evidence-base for their change programme). The steps build on each other in what I describe as 'work programme'.

In reality, a 'pick-and-mix' approach can be used. If, for example, managers are seeking to select the best organisational modality for achieving defined agility deliverables then they can go straight to Step Six: (Customising: This step enables effective types of agility to be selected to meet the needs of the organisation).

As I have undertaken interventions in organisations I have found that a step-by-step approach acts as a team-based educational device that facilitates the development of intellectual coherence, so this is my preference as it serves as a mission-essential integrating mechanism.

Many thanks for you great questions.

Hilal Apuhan, this query about the nature and function of leadership in agile organizations refers to the volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (aka VUCA) of 21st century situations. With respect to VUCA situations, many consider that the field of leadership is undergoing a paradigm shift, in which hitherto predominant theories (e.g., transformational leadership, leader–member exchange) are being challenged. Distributed leadership, in which case leadership is not the formal property of an individual but the emergent property of a group, is one example of an alternative arrangement; agile leadership—which has implications for distributed teams—is another. That said, any alternative to "heroic leadership" hangs on the willingness of others to assume responsivity and mobilize the collective. This is where values, to which your answer seems to allude, must necessarily come into the picture.

Hilal Apuhan egos... too much egos. totally agree with you

Adeline Leroy Tanks a lot...

Oliver Serrat I understand you, but throughout history, successful organizations have always been a good leader of troops and navies. They achieved this success because they said we, not me.

I think this will always be up to date, isn't it? As long as human values ​​remain, the welfare level of people increases in success.

Article Information and Communication Technology in Organizations: P...

The article argues that, amplified by information and communication technology (ICT), the volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity of situations challenge organizations to anticipate and reap opportunities. The article maps out core concepts of agility that organizations can follow to renew themselves and succeed in turbulent environments, signifies principles that leaders should honor for reflective and effective organization design, and touches on practical approaches to exploiting agility for advantage. Citing lessons of experience, the article underscores the need to leverage ICT with e-leadership in ways that synergize people and technology in newfound workforce ecosystems, especially with respect to the virtual teams that characterize the "New Normal".

Thank you all for this insightful discussion. I had a query of my own to add to this. Given how ICT have been traditionally viewed as a male dominated domain and that agility is largely driven through technological adaptation and syncing, what is the scope for non-male leaders and their growth in agile organisations, given that women leaders are already few and far between in traditional setups?

Shweta's question is interesting. Although I have been researching into organisational agility for more than 20 years this is the first time that I have been asked to consider the impact of gender. As far as I know, there has not been an extensive study of this topic. So, my comments are just opinions.

Let me begin with 'Mums Net' (https://www.mumsnet.com). This highly effective online platform for sharing experience, coordinating events and influencing is (I think almost entirely) female inspired, driven and supported. It demonstrates the willingness of women to take action about things that they feel to be important and to develop what I call and 'organisational agility ambition'. Equally important, is a willingness to cooperate and make a sustained commitment to contribute. These attributes are important as a shared ambition, sustained commitment and cooperativeness are mission-essential in agile organisations as cohesion cannot be engineered by bureaucratic means alone.

My guess is that the willingness and ability of women to be proactive in agile organisations will be affected by broader sociological conditions but the lived experiences of women probably requires them to be more adaptive than men, meaning that the propensity to operate in an agile environment could be high.

Shweta Kushal and David Louis Francis: Thank you both for these insights. "Agile" connotes with few (certainly, fewer) boundaries (e.g., set rules, supervision) and with leadership that shapes agile ways of working for success. Changing mentalities is never easy but guiding (not managing); involving everyone; trusting (so one might be trusted); being honest, transparent, and open-minded; encouraging feedback; and breaking rules, to name a few examples of agile behavior, ought to conduce better representation of women and women leaders in agile organizations than in traditional setups.

PS: We should be wary of generalizing across countries as far as traditional setups are concerned: the situation is not the same everywhere (Radu, 2020).

Reference

Radu, S. (2020, February 10). The 10 worst countries for gender equality, ranked by perception. U.S. News. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/10-worst-countries-for-gender-equality-ranked-by-perception

Transparency in agile leadership requires leaders who are transparent about their own work—sharing information about what they're working on. From there, employees can step up and provide solutions and work to help their leaders — while having a space to talk about what they need in return.

Article Techtonic: The Role of Technology in Organizations

This article scrutinizes the intensifying role of information and communication technology (ICT) in organizations from economic, organizational, psychological, social, and technical perspectives. First, the article elucidates first-order, intra-organizational results from past and recent advances in ICT. Second, the article considers second-level impacts of ICT on economy, society, work, and the very act of organizing and submits that organizations must now learn to leverage ICT for agility in situations of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. Third, the article maps out core concepts of agility and calls on e-leadership to synergize people and technology in newfound workforce ecosystems, especially with respect to the virtual teams that increasingly characterize the "New Normal".

In my research I found Agility is not universally beneficial as adopting the wrong type of Agility, or not creating supportive organisational conditions, would mean that the pursuit of Agility would be dysfunctional. This means that a key role of leaders is to select the type of agility needed and to view it as a component of Dynamic Capabilities, rather than as a stand-alone attribute. Importantly, I have found that Agility needs to be fit-for-purpose or requisite. Accordingly, it is right to see that selectively adopting Agility is a strategic commitment, like any other. There will be costs, both financial and nonfinancial and, hopefully, flows of benefits that l describe as ‘Agility Deliverables’.

David Louis Francis: Thank you for the important clarification that agility for agility's sake is not the issue. Developing the right type of agility (for the right reason, in the right way, at the right time, etc.) is of the essence. I imagine there must be a relationship between prevalent "business models" (e.g., advertising, franchise, leasing, lowest price, middleman, retail, service, subscription) and what district "types of agility" might be desired in each case. Have you endeavored to draw a taxonomy of what these might be?

Thanks Oliver. Yes, I developed a typology that is constructed around function and managerial requirements. It is intended to help managers and their advisers to indentify what organisational design is best to achieve their desired 'agility deliverables'. My stance is that requisite systemic agility requires that appropriate types of agility have been adopted and implemented effectively in each sub-unit that can benefit. My model describes eight types of agility, namely top down (agility by centralisation), routines-based (agility by pre-planning), project-based (agility from temporary organisations), socio-technical (agility by optimising human and non-human capabilities), skunk-works (agility from cutting-edge specialists), intrapreneurial (agility from internal entrepreneurship), granular (agility from devolved teams) and networked (agility from inter organisational collaboration).

If you are interested in greater detail then pages 187-226 in my recent book give examples and describe the managerial challenges of each of the eight types.

('Exploiting Agility for Advantage: A Step-by-Step Process for Acquiring Requisite Organisational Agility' de Gruyter 2020).

You ask whether there is relationship between prevalent "business models" (e.g., advertising, franchise, leasing, lowest price, middleman, retail, service, subscription) and distinct "types of agility". This important question is answered by seeing Agility as being inextricably linked to a firm’s capabilities, both Dynamic and Ordinary and to its selected Competitive Strategy. Simply put, pursuing organisational Agility for its own sake is a managerial error. Rather commercial and not-for-profit enterprises should seek to acquire Requisite Agility.

Many thanks for your interesting comments and questions.

Thank you for this question Olivier, which is now being discussed all over the world. In my opinion, the digital disruption is not the main driver of necessary transformations. There is no doubt that the possibilities of digitization are changing everything; many business models and processes are being questioned and replaced with better ones. In my opinion, the main theme is the change in people. The industrialization of the 19th and 20th centuries gave people many opportunities, but also a lot of suffering and trouble. Today, people increasingly refuse to be bullied. They ask for participation and appreciation. This is now reflected in the business world. Nobody wants to work “under” authoritarian leaders anymore. Appreciation in the company today means working together on an equal footing. Business models and processes have to be put to the test: sustainability, customer orientation, competitiveness and employee satisfaction are the current drivers. We don't need 100 management models and more agile working for this. Common sense is enough. The right approaches can be found in the model of the servant leader.

On the subject of agile working, I would just like to mention that this should not be exaggerated. We have known agility for a very long time. Development teams need these options for action. But I would not build a power plant with this management model. The use of agile methods must be considered and used depending on the situation.

Hartmut Kainer, I could not agree more. Requisite agility as advocated by David Louis Francis, sustainability, business model innovation, team work (including virtual teaming), servant leadership, staff engagement, knowledge workers, etc. A few articles on these important matters are hyperlinked below.

Article Techtonic: The Role of Technology in Organizations

Data World Sustainable Development Timeline

Article Business Model Innovation

Article Working in Teams

Article Managing Virtual Teams

Article Exercising Servant Leadership

Article Engaging Staff in the Workplace

Article Managing Knowledge Workers

Thank Olivier for your support. Something to read ad night. BR: Hartmut