My New Model of Leadership in the 21st- Century

The world is more complex, globalized and technology-enabled than ever. At the same time, it is confronting grave problems such
as youth unemployment, income disparity and climate change. Solutions are proving
elusive. Effective leadership is a crucial element in addressing these intractable challenges.
Unfortunately, the old rules of leadership are no longer valid. Why? Because the context in which leaders operate has changed. At the WEF’s Global Agenda Council on New Models of Leadership, we
have boiled down these changes—and what they mean for leaders—to a shortlist of four .

1.) Globalization means cross-border collaboration

In the past, leaders needed only to be concerned about issues in their own country. Due to globalization, they now have to collaborate with other countries’ leaders as a matter of routine. More and more issues today have a cross-border
element. Think, for example, of the Euro crisis.

2.) Multiple stakeholders have to be addressed.

Leaders need to engage with multiple stakeholders. Again, take the Euro crisis as an example. Finance ministers had to deal
not only with their counterparts in other Euro countries, but with the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, financial markets, hedge funds and, of
course, their own voters. The presence of so many stakeholders necessarily makes issues harder to solve.

3.) Technology demands speedy response.

With the Internet and mobile devices, everybody now knows everything the instant it happens. (Think of the explosions at the nuclear power station in Fukushima
after the earthquake and tsunami. These were shown worldwide in real time on TV, then replayed countless times on PCs, tablets and smartphones.) Governments no
longer have the luxury of time when crafting their response in a crisis. Ditto with CEOs, addressing faulty-product issues. Unless a fast response is forthcoming, discontent can spread like wild fire through the online community.

4.) Social media and people power.

Until the advent of Web-based social media, the “old media” disseminated information one way. Now, news and information has
become a two-way street. Leaders have to engage not just with the conventional mass media but with ordinary people active on social media. As the Arab Spring showed,
social media can genuinely empower the people. Modern leaders need to treat it with respect.

At the Global Agenda Council, we have been exploring the issue of leadership for a few years. Our conclusion: the old paradigm needs to evolve.

It used to be said that a good leader needed “a warm heart and a cool head”. Now, in addition to the ability to build emotional connections and make rational
decisions, leaders require a third skill: the ability to communicate in a smart and timely fashion via multiple media.

This is just another evolutionary step. In the days of radio, the voice was enough; then, with TV, overall image became important. Now, with the Internet, speed and two-way interaction have become crucial.

Smart and timely communication means addressing multiple stakeholders’ concerns swiftly through a range of channels in a
global language. The message will then generate its own momentum, through sharing, retweeting and liking, and calm the mood of crisis.

Listen, learn and lead

The old “warm heart” aspect of leadership is evolving too. Formerly, leaders tended to belong to the dominant caste. In the
Western world, for example, they were usually white males. Clearly this is no longer true. Think of U.S. president Barack Obama, German chancellor Angela Merkel, or the dean of Harvard Business School,
Nitin Nohria.

Since a single dominant group can no longer lead by imposing its values, leaders now have to develop a different style. In a
diverse world, a leader’s role is to
understand different groups’ motivations and differences, and, based on this understanding, to build rapport and common ground.

Harvard provides a good example of the difference between old- and new-style leadership. Remember when university president Lawrence Summers resigned in
2006 after igniting a storm with ill-judged remarks about women’s aptitude for science and clashes with black faculty members? His was the old top-down, less diversity-tolerant style of leadership. Summer’s successor, Drew Faust, a woman, is quite different: cautious, tactful and
sensitive to difference. I don’t l regard either approach as intrinsically better, but Harvard is undeniably calmer and more stable now than it was on Summers’ watch.

What do you think? Have the leaders of your country (or company) woken up to the need for a new model of leadership incorporating smart, timely and tactful communication? Do you believe that this different style of leadership will help humanity solve the serious challenges we currently face?