In ‘Who Leads, Who Follows? Critical Review of the Field of Leadership Studies’, Michael Peters critically engages with and deconstructs the broad, immense, seemingly ever-expanding literature on leadership. As he details, leadership studies have proliferated over time and shifted in line with changing global political priorities and new understandings of how people interrelate in societies. From great-man theories to models of transformational, distributed, and post-apocalyptic survival leadership, there has been a movement away from a view that charismatic manly men rule (literally) to critical questions about whether leadership is well conceptualized as a characteristic of individuals, what constitutes a good or great leader in troubled times, and how a bottom-up view impacts how leadership is understood. As Peters’ analysis also elucidates, in some ways the evolution of the field of leadership studies echoes more general trends in ways of thinking from the Enlightenment liberal era to neoliberalism and postmodernism over time, as the role of grassroots movements, women and minorities, and others not originally considered subjects of the discourse have been focused on more only in the last few decades.

As Peters suggests, troubled concepts of leadership reflect troubled times. In another sense, leadership studies serve as rear-view mirrors that reflect the visions of their drivers, who are most often thinking about specific problems that need to be solved (e.g., injustice, climate change) when they elaborate on what they think counts as leadership. That is, we need leaders to transform; we need leaders to manage; we need leaders to enhance equity and justice. From these predicaments, new kinds of leaders are identified, or creatively imagined, and emerge in pages of articles and books. In this way, a top-down vision of leadership arguably remains today, as elites still produce these visions of leadership, and none of the literature is effectively written from the point of view of vulnerable, oppressed, or disadvantaged members of societies or organizations. Furthermore and relatedly, leadership studies still tend to suffer from individualism. As Peters points out this stems in part from the nature of organizations to this day, as they still tend to seek individual persons to lead from the top, rather than more distributed r. Again, the prevailing views reflect the visions of their authors, who thus serve (even unwittingly) as sustainers and preservers of neoliberal organizations and status quos, writing down what they experience and want to experience as if things have to be that way.

Can we rid leadership studies of their individualism and top-down orientation, or are these inevitable features of this tradition? Where are the studies of bad leadership? Or of leadership as a negative, problematic, and harmful concept – which often demands that people take on social roles that few or no sane or ethical people would take on within insane and unethical social systems? Considering Peters’ exposure of the conceptual limitations of the field historically to present day, it may be time to rethink the concept of leadership as a nearly empty signifier and the field of leadership studies. I thank Peters for his critical review which offers up much rich food for thought on how we think through local and global change in relation to the concept of leadership going forward.

In this article, Peters provide an extensive critical review of the field of leadership studies in order to answer the question, as the title of his article depicts, namely who leads and who follows? Although he does not explicitly give the answer, we learn that it is not an easy question to answer from Peters’ work. For many people, including intellectuals, leaders should be the Great Man and the followers should be the ordinary people; or leaders should be the persons with particular traits and the followers should be those who lack the trait. Nevertheless, Peters shows that this taken-for-granted assumption may just be a myth, as modern leadership scholars have suggested that leadership is the process or capability by which people influence others. In other words, everyone should be a leader informally or formally. To demystify, the scholars propose different leadership ideas and theories like collective leadership, distributed leadership, and shared leadership in order to promote a more democratic environment that encourages equal participation among people regardless of their class, gender, ethnicity, and other sociocultural backgrounds in decision-making or policy-making processes. Nevertheless, in this review article, Peters show us that such leadership ideas and theories may not emancipate people even though social organizations may attempt to promote collective, distributed, or shared leadership. This is because the ideas and theories are just the discourses advocated by neoliberal capitalism to responsibilize them and lead them to misunderstand that they are delegated. Thus, people may think they are empowered if they are allowed to participate in decision-making process of an organization, but they may not be aware of that the empowerment is conditioned because their leadership power is subject to a set of accountability measures. In this sense, everyone is discursively led (disciplined), even though they take leadership roles. From Peters’ review, we can infer this situation will continue and even become worse in the biodigital future. The reason is that everyone is not only conducted by disciplinary power, but also biopower under biodigitalism. Let’s say, no one may believe he/she can make a good decision if he/she does not have advanced digital technology assistance. For examples, people may prefer to trust Google Map rather than their own experience while driving and people may take advices from restaurant picker apps while choosing a restaurant for dinner. In other words, no one will be free agents because every choice we have is biodigitally determined. To overcome the situation, Peters promotes the ecological-systems model of leadership that is centred on the notion of ecological democracy or education for ecological democracy. As he states, this notion “stands for grassroots participation and the search for sustainable alternatives to the dominant economic model that is more equitable and in line with goals of direct democracy aimed at the active preservation of bio-diversity and cultural diversity, anchored in the bioregional and global economies, with resilience and human well-being at its core. Education for Ecological Democracy is based an alternative democratic model that strives to educate students about the norms and values of democracy-in-action and eventually incorporate them as interested citizens into environmental decision-making and collective action.” In other words, the ecological-systems of leadership is not just an ideology or discourse, it is also an enlightenment project that aims to re-engineer the existing education systems in order to emancipate students from the dominant ideologies, empower them to regain the control over their body, and ultimately become the true leaders for themselves and societies in the further. Nevertheless, the question is how to re-engineer the existing education systems. Unfortunately, this article does not aim to analyze the re-engineering approach since it aims to provide a critical review of leadership studies. But, I personally believe that Peters will outline the approach and give recommendations for us based on the ecological-systems model and the idea of ecological democracy in the coming further. I personally am looking forward to Peters’ future work on that topic.

In critically reviewing a field of study, a number of approaches can be fruitful. In reviewing the field of leadership studies, Peters (this volume) provides both some chronological development together with a close analysis of several of the different views of considerable importance. The first of these is Great Man theory an early version of which he locates in the writings of Thomas Carlyle. Despite its 19th century origins, it continues to thrive to the present time particularly, as Peters notes, by virtue of the influence of transformational leadership which occurred out of the rising adoption of school-based management in many jurisdictions over the past 30 years. As Caldwell and Spinks (1992, pp. 49–50) claim, “a powerful capacity for transformational leadership is required for the successful transition to a system of self-managing schools”. Gronn’s (1996, pp. 14–27) “Greatness revisited” paper emphasizes this connection.

Although the field’s current focus is still on leaders as individuals, transformational leadership has given way to an even stronger focus on instructional leadership, largely because a purported principal virtue of school-based management – namely improved student learning outcomes – failed to occur. (But see Robinson, et al.,2008, pp. 635–674.)

In educational administration, as a broad field, leadership was not of primary concern before neo-liberal public sector policy reforms reshaped the field in the 1990s. This is because from the 1950s, under the influence of the Theory Movement, ideas about organizations were shaped by a logical empiricist view of theories and their justification. (Evers and Lakomski, 1991; Lakomski and Evers, 2020.) A key feature of these philosophical ideas was that administrative theories should be able to sustain something approximating law-like generalizations. The conceptual framework that most fitted this requirement was systems theory. Educational organizations were viewed as social systems (Hoy and Miskel, 2001). However, a central tenet of systems theory is that systems tend towards equilibrium when the system is disturbed. This seriously compromised systems theory as a theoretical framework for developing accounts of large-scale change. Moreover, logical empiricism, at that time, restricted accounts of leadership to a non-cognitive, behaviourist version of leader action (Halpin, 1966/1957).

In an effort to be scientific, educational administration embraced the study of organizations as systems. In an effort to be scientific about leadership, the emphasis shifted to the justification of leadership theories based on so-called evidence-based research, again a strongly logical empiricist approach in its quantitative manifestations, though not in qualitative research (Evers, 2022).

There are two main issues that current leadership research needs to consider. The first is what counts as a unit of leadership. Overwhelmingly favoured is the individual leader, a form of leader-centrism. But this is an assumption that always needs to be justified according to leadership contexts, which can vary considerably from organization to organization. Decision-making is assumed to be a paradigm case of individual engagement. But if decisions are fallible and provisional, an epistemology of error correction in light of decision implementation implies that many hands are involved. From an epistemic perspective, social epistemology might be a more advantageous explanatory framework. (See Evers and Lakomski, 2022.) The aperture afforded by social epistemology can considerably expand the unit of leadership beyond the individual. Determining the unit of leadership is an open empirical question.

A second issue concerns how to draw the boundary between the unit of leadership and the context in which it operates. Peters (this volume) in his discussion of critical leadership studies shows how drawing this boundary is highly sensitive to wider theoretical and empirical considerations. If leaders are theorized as individual cognizing agents who act with cognitive autonomy, context is less important. Accomplishing leadership is more a matter of leader charisma, will, capacity for motivation and understanding. On the other hand, if we look at leadership activity through the lens of causation, particularly the causal constraints imposed by social structures, socio-economic status, culture, language, resources and conditions for opportunity, wide-ranging claims of leader agency will seem inflated.

Peters (this volume) broadens the scope of leadership context even further, defending an ecological systems view. This is an important next step in understanding the challenges of what leadership means and how it can be causally effective in avoiding the coming crises we will all face in the future.

References

In terms of Prof. Peters mentioned in his article, leadership Studies in the early period drew heavily on classical sociological theories such as Max Weber’s concept of legitimate authority that provided three formulations in terms of traditional, legal-rational and charismatic. The article reviews the change of leadership in different period, especially in the period of creative economy and globalization. Leadership is a inter-discipline concept, it has close relations with sociology.

Besides Webb’s notion of legitimate authority, the principle of bureaucracy is a critical sociological theory. Bureaucracy is legal in that operated on the basis of procedures that could be adjusted corrected or otherwise through resort to a body of rules by those subject to its authority. From this start point, legitimate authority is core concept of sociological theory and bureaucracy become the key notion of applied sociology, such as sociology of organization, work and gender. In this sense, the theory of bureaucracy, including legitimate authority is the start point of the leadership research from the sociological perspective. Leadership study is not a popular issue in the early stage of sociological academic committee, while control or the human relations in certain political organizations or production units are the hot points.

After 1980s, following with the emerge of neoliberalism, the development of information communication and the rise of creative economy, post-bureaucracy is one the characteristics of organizations, including various kinds of schools, universities, public and private sectors. Leadership study is paid attention by sociologists. Leadership, with the change of management, control any consent, resulted in the change of all kind of organization. It is believed that the progress of the technology does not mean the the control released and equal rights in production organizations, specifically in creative sector. Individual or team performance assessment and result-oriented are the new form of leadership (or control). The discussion of Transformational Leadership is almost the same start point.

Refer to the gender perspective, almost all the important sociological theories before the waves of feminism were male perspective. Although feminists are very critical and they proposed new theories to challenge the traditional theories, they normally “add” female perspective in the existed theories. “Glass ceiling” is a very popular concept to challenge the “old” leadership study. We have to say, the concept of glass ceiling is not a very powerful explanation tool. How to build a new theory to overcome” a false view of human nature that assumes the superiority of male leadership in the family, in the home, in society and the world at large is difficult.

Based on the dramatic change of the world, risk becomes a “new” issue of modern and post modern society. Several influential theories were promoted by sociologists, such as Beck and Giddens. Crisis leadership has been not paid attention. In addition, Prof. Peters raised again an old political question “who leads, who follows?” in the background of risk society. He mentioned that, in the ecological model of leadership power is distributed throughout the system, driven only by the force of consent from the majority or a significant consensus that enables action. In a sense, he brought the issue of leadership back to the typical sociological research field.

On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom voted in a referendum to leave the European Union (EU). There were three ways to leave the EU: leave the EU but remain in the single market (like Norway), leave the EU and single market, but retain most favoured nation status (like Canada), or leave everything and trade on wto rules. But there was only one way of remaining in the EU. The three ways to leave garnered 52% of the vote, while the one way to stay secured only 48%.

As Prime Minister Theresa May discovered, having won the vote to leave, there was no way to secure a majority for any of the three ways to leave, and parliament was deadlocked. What was needed was a leader who could lie in the face of any contrary evidence, and who could claim the ability to “Get Brexit done”, and then claim that he had done it when he had not. Boris Johnson replaced Theresa May as Prime Minister.

But after Brexit came the pandemic, austerity and war, and what was needed was a leader who could say, “We are all in this together”, without stimulating gales of derisive laughter. Liz Truss replaced Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. Sorry. What was needed was a leader who could say, “We are all in this together”, without stimulating gales of derisive laughter, and present a reasonable plan. Rishi Sunak replaced Liz Truss as Prime Minister.

Cometh the hour, cometh the person. When a lying bastard is needed, they step forward to fill the ranks of leadership (there was no shortage of supply among the candidates). When a passable imitation of sincerity is needed, a different leader is found. Is this a matter of leadership qualities, or of the pressure of context, or a match between leader and context? Well, yes and no. Each is a suitable framework for analysing developments, but if one hopes to understand what is “really” going on, to examine things-in-themselves, then one asks too much.

Professor Peters has invited me to respond to his review of the field of leadership studies. And as I read the earlier history of the field, and of the changing academic fashions from Great Men, to leadership traits, to the practices of leaders, I was impressed with the masterful handling, and was sure I had found a valuable resource that I could use in teaching. But I was struck by the fact that the further I read, the further the account moved from description to include a growing normative element. Leadership ought to be seen as collective, it should be inclusive, democratic and addressed to sustainability. And this prescriptive turn is not entirely the responsibility of Professor Peters. It is a reflection on the state of our field of study, whether that is leadership studies, education studies or comparative education. Our field is less and less driven by disinterested curiosity about how things happen, and increasingly aligned with certain goals that are assumed to be imperative, often linking means and ends, as when it is assumed that democracy must lead to action for sustainability, or improved education must promote social equity.

That does not mean that I think this piece will be any less valuable as a teaching resource, but it does mean that I think it chronicles a dangerous tendency to frame our field of study as a culture war in which young scholars are expected to declare which side they are on. And, ironically, one route out of this labyrinth seems to be cut off. While we seem to be moving inexorably toward more personalised, individualised education, and attaching more importance to individual creativity, that path is seen as the dominance of a universalising, individualistic logic. And we are not supposed to like that.

Michael Peters’ article provides a critical history of the development of many theories of leadership, and his insights have led me to a greater understanding of the broader background of leadership. In addition to its historical perspective, the article includes political, educational, economic, and ecological viewpoints. From the concepts and research of leadership theory in the article, we see that in coping with challenges and changes, the role of leaders in solving problems in society and organizations has changed. From at one time relying on a “Great Man” approach, leadership is continually expanding and reflecting current social and organizational values. The main body of leadership has changed from a top-down to bottom-up model and from a hierarchical to a flat network. The leadership of organizations and individuals is moving towards a new paradigm that is far more democratic, negotiable, sharing, dynamic, globalized, and ecological than it has been in the past.

The article triggered me to be more interested in theories of leadership as I believe that they relate to teaching, and it has prompted me to think more deeply regarding their applications to education. I am fascinated by the notion of the teacher as educational leader. In organizing scientific research, curriculum, teaching, talent training, and social services, university faculties need to break through the closed, narrow, and isolated classroom work model. They need to have a higher goal, a broader vision, and a wider range of cooperation to carry out their work. They need to give full play to the possibilities of teaching, develop the potential of students, provide more cooperation with society and the world, and make full use of high-tech and smart technology. They need to move away from the seclusion of their classrooms and view themselves as educational leaders who contribute to student well-being and who can effectively be of benefit to students, universities, society, and the world.

After reading about the theories of leadership in the article, I believe that teachers can be considered curriculum and instructional leaders. For example, I use Integral Drama Based Pedagogy (idbp) to inspire leadership for future teachers and education administrators. I focus on establishing a safe, inclusive, and mutually supportive atmosphere, organize small and large groups, and promote creation, cooperation, and discussion among all participants. The materials we use are not limited to publications, but they also come from the social events and life experiences of the students, as well as from stories created by the group. The participants play their own chosen roles. This process provides opportunities for developing leadership among prospective teachers because they learn not to lecture their future students but to actively lead them in meaningful leaning. My students learn how to be teacher leaders in their future educational career.

Within a broad-lens critical review of the field of leadership studies, positioned herein as lacking adequate theoretical contribution towards the resolution of complex global crises, Peters evinces a pointed concern for transgressing the staid political economic constraints that bind educational leadership in theory and practice. This concern undergirds their highlighting of an ecological model of educational leadership, which may facilitate the promotion of Ecological Democracy (ed) – a flexible curriculum aimed at engendering informed, engaged, and action-oriented democratic grassroots adaptability to systemic complexity and ecological crises.

To begin, the author first charts the development of leadership studies from within a masculine, hierarchical view of the charismatic “lone hero” archetype. This is followed by a discussion of alternative critical/feminist efforts to conceptualize leadership as a transformative proposition that is distributed/emerges through a range of cognitive/organizational pathways/processes/practices that promote inclusivity/diversity/equity/agency and/or consensus decision-making towards ameliorative institutional change. Nevertheless, the author notes that the pursuit of social, political, cognitive, and ecological justice, as core imperatives embedded within many of these approaches to leadership, have been stifled within a neoliberal political economy of knowledge that continues to valorise and foster individual subjectivity, performativity, responsibilization, and competition within false human/nature/us vs. them dichotomies. This understanding frames both their critique of current global governance frameworks as well as their call to reimagine new multipolar leadership infrastructures that foment collective societal mobilization in response to pandemics, famine, war, climate change, and environmental disasters. In this light, the author argues that leadership studies must “step outside the historical cage” of liberal bureaucratization, exclusion, and alienation towards a political economy based in epistemological inclusivity, acceptance, and collective striving towards mutually agreed upon outcomes. In specific, the author posits that in lieu of the current one-to-many modalities upon which the concept of principal leadership currently coalesces, new theoretical understandings of ‘leaders and followers’ may be developed within the many-to-many modalities provided by an ecological approach to the study of leadership. This approach is foregrounded within the author’s utilization of an ecological metaphor for educational leadership, wherein educational institutions are framed as cognitive ecosystems that are both shaped by and shape the epistemic, social, and physical systems in which they are nested. Moreover, this ecological approach utilizes the metaphor of systemic openness to envision a radically open political economy of decentralized knowledge wherein educational leadership is connotative of shared efforts to facilitate grassroots socio-political mobilization towards biodigital co-evolution. Specifically, within schools as increasingly networked bioinformational ecologies of knowledge, legitimate authority manifests through a Deweyan/Habermasian understanding of “public reason” – the bedrock upon which subaltern educational leaders may promote adaptive ecological responses vis-a-vis teaching/learning, scholarship, democratic activism, citizen science, and collective political action towards the public good. To this effect, the author presents an argument for placing this ecological approach to educational leadership at the center of an interdisciplinary educational framework for ed, a holistic ecological curriculum that educates students and guides our multipolar global society towards democratic engagement with sustainable environmental decision-making and collective action.

With roots tracing back to the history of science (Rosenberg, 1979), the sociology of knowledge (Star, 1995), knowledge management (km) (Davenport, 1997), educational theory (Petrides & Guiney, 2002), and leadership studies (Wielkewicz & Stelzner, 2005), the utilization of adaptive models of leadership/educational leadership that incorporate ecological principles to engage with information, complexity, and crisis, does not represent a novel proposition. However, the author’s positioning of schools as networked bioinformational ecologies of knowledge, wherein an ecological model of educational leadership is used to promote a flexible civilizational curriculum aimed at grassroots climate engagement/adaptation, shared responsibility, and collective action – does represent one such novel proposition. To be clear, if taken out of context, this argument may come across as abstract. However, when taken in aggregate with the author’s previous leadership efforts aimed at the development of knowledge cultures (Peters & Besley, 2006) who co-labor within myriad postdigital ecologies of knowledge (Peters et al., 2022) towards a shared vision of biodigital co-evolution (Peters et al, 2021), the development of both this model and subsequent ed curriculum no longer seems far-fetched. Rather, they can be more clearly understood within an actualized process of systemic co-evolution, a project of biodigital becoming that, owed in large part to the author’s embodiment of this leadership model is well underway.

References

For decades, leadership theory and leadership model have been a hot topic in academic research throughout the world. Especially in an era of rapid change, the existing leadership theories and leadership models have been challenged unprecedentedly. Scholars from different fields and sectors raised different opinions on how to build leadership theories and leadership models that adapt to the new era. The research on the transformation of leadership theory and leadership model has shown unprecedented prosperity.

I am glad to have the opportunity to be a first reader of professor Michael Peters’ paper “who leads, who follows? Critical review of the field of leadership studies: from the ‘great man’ & trait theory to equity & diversity leadership in the biodigital era”. The time and space span of his study is very large. From the perspective of time, he reviewed the evolution of leadership studies and the development of leadership theories especially leadership models since the middle of the 19th century. From the perspective of space, although he still uses the western-centred discourse system because of his life experience, he shows an open and inclusive mentality and a global perspective.

In a strict sense, heroes and great man theory is not a systematic leadership theory. From the perspective of development process, systematic leadership theory studies mainly includes leadership trait theory, leadership behavior theory, leadership contingency theory, transactional leadership theory, transformational leadership theory, charismatic leadership theory, distributed leadership theory, feminist leadership theory, and etc. Different leadership theories and leadership models are proposed to adapt to different cultures and environments, and changes in cultures and environments will inevitably lead to changes in theoretical models.

The above leadership theories and models were mainly put forward by the western world. Their influence in the world is not only due to their ideas themselves, but also because the west holds a leading position in the global discourse system. Since ancient times, no country can monopolize knowledge, nor can the western world monopolize truth. The leadership theories and models of the western world are not necessarily suitable for other cultures and countries. All countries in the world, including the global south, have their unique wisdom. Their leadership theories and models are based on their own culture and environment, which is more conducive to solving their own problems. From a global perspective, both western centralism and eastern centralism show their limitations in the era of globalization. The west and the east need to learn from each other, strengthen exchanges and integration, and achieve innovation in leadership theories and models, build leadership theories and models that meet the requirements of the times and local needs.

We are now in an era of globalization, digitalization, and ecological or sustainable development. At the same time, it is also a so-called vuca era which is full of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. Therefore, it is imperative for us to explore new leadership theories and models. The change of leadership theory and leadership model in the new era should not be minor mending of relevant theories and models, but should be a subversive change, a revolution of leadership theory. In this context, professor michael peters advocates the ecological-systems model of leadership, which can be said to be a choice for human beings to meet the challenges of the times. How to conceptualize, systematize, contextualize and operationalize this leadership model still needs further work.

The manuscript, entitled “Who Leads, Who Follows? Critical Review of the Field of Leadership Studies from the ‘Great Man’ & Trait Theory to Equity & Diversity Leadership in the Biodigital Era”, is a well-organized, informative, and inspired essay. It adopts a historical approach to present the changes in leadership theories moving from personal traits to democratic participation through a comprehensive review of related ideas and empirical studies. In terms of functioning as a theoretical toolkit, the references cited in this manuscript are appropriate and strong. For instance, the author rightly argues that while a view of ‘history from above’ assumes the importance of the traits of great leaders, this perspective has a critical shortcoming due to its theoretical assumption that misinterprets M. Weber’s legitimate authority theory. More specifically, what Weber emphasizes is successive changes in the exercise of legitimate authority shifting from a traditional type endorsed by customs to a charismatic style highlighting extraordinal personalities and, finally legal-rational form legitimatized through the bureaucratic system. Accordingly, instead of charisma, the impersonal orientation of legitimate authority is the ultimate form of power approved and exercised by democratic societies. Unfortunately, the above trait-based approach misunderstood Weber’s theories of authority. Furthermore, as this trait-based approach neglects the influence of social changes on social structures, cultures, expectations etc. which reshape social needs that redefine the meanings of leadership, this school cannot fit into contemporary society addressing democratic values, social justice and equity as evident in the rise of Marxism.

For the author, the above weaknesses engendered the development of transformative leadership theories. Particularly, when neoliberalism has become predominant at the time when free market logic has started to reformate social and organizational contexts since the 1980s, this development became compelling. Because neoliberalists advocate the status of new managerialism (or termed public managerialism) through which efficiency is aligned with common goods, many governments acquire legitimate authority to implement the ideas of free market logic such as competition, deregulation, privatization, and commercialization. As a result, the notion of great government derived from Keynesianism has gone, so personal efforts have replaced social welfare.

Since the strategy of public managerialism is devolution empowering individual units to decide their own organizational plans, school senior administrators then obtain a considerable degree of authority. Meanwhile, this empowerment ushers in the concept of accountability demanding individual schools to be responsible for the outcomes of their development plans. Accordingly, they need to demonstrate their abilities through excellent performance. This situation resonates a principle that leadership is heavily regulated by the features of social structure manufactured by neoliberalism. Accountability is bound with two aspects – student performance and efficient leaders as evidenced by the increasing popularity of performance management policy evaluating teacher teaching efficiency. Along with the expansion of globalization, accountability is evolutionarily attached with a globalized context in the age of a multipolarity world the features of which call for effective leaders who are able to solve international issues and crises as evident in the increasingly critical issue of global warming. Obviously, the author has provided us with many creative insights into the dynamical changes in the field of leadership theories and such insights would inspire many international readers who are interested in this discipline.

As human capital discourse plays a crucial role in the interplay between globalization, international competitiveness, neoliberalism, public managerialism, teaching quality and performativity, it would be helpful if Peters could indicate the implications of his work for human capital theory and in future work address the relation between neoliberalism and anti-feminism. Neoliberalism addresses competition and efficiency that depends on the status of individual efforts. Individualism is the core element within western neoliberalism exercising capitalist democracy in which patriarchal authority can be significantly restrained with the potential for liberating underrepresented groups from those collectivist societies based on patriarchal authority. While the ecological model of leadership addresses democratic cooperation and participation, its authority is not substantially distributed to social citizens because it is difficult to allow all social members to participate in policy-making, and often experts become their representatives so that power is concentrated within the club of social elites.

By deconstructing the notion of ‘charisma’ in Thomas Carlyle and Max Weber’s classics work on the concepts of ‘great men’ and ‘authority’ respectively, Michael Peters uncovers the shaping forces of leadership issues over the centuries. Through a comprehensive historical review of research development from traits theories, via distributed (or shared) democratic leadership models to transformative leadership ones, Peters addresses and challenges their underlying assumptions, and even updates the international readers with some unexplored concepts of ‘coproduction’ and ‘cocreation’ for international partnership in leadership studies. By challenging the unjustified male-dominating power in leadership fields, he extends his discussion to feminist critique and critical leadership studies. Finally, he postulates the new ecological-systems model of leadership in the twenty-first century by highlighting the multipolarity and production of global public goods and the emergence of ‘bioinformationalism’ or ‘biodigitalism’ shaped by technological convergence and integration. As a whole, the scholarly paper is a genealogy of the leadership discourse in the history of human mankind.

On close examination, in Peter’s deconstruction project of surveying leadership studies, the duality between leaders and followers is tacitly assumed without unfolding the binding forces between the two parties. There may be some fluidity lying behind. By decentering the power discourse through the Foucaultian notion of ‘governmentality’, further investigation can focus on who is being led or followed and can thereby uncover the orientations of the power relations between them. Mid-level leaders and their power relations with their higher-level leaders and with the low-level followers are new units of a leadership analysis. For brevity in the paper, Peters might skip the recent academic discussion on mid-level leadership in general and their multi-level emotional, and entrepreneurial leadership models in particular when their working education, social, and business organizations/enterprises face chaos and uncertainties. In their mediating effects, such mid-level leaders play an irreplaceable role in leading new cultural, educational, and social innovations or facing unavoidable entrepreneurial and short-term leadership failures in their educational development, industries or other professional fields. To explore deeper, the socio-historical and biopolitical binding forces of ‘bioinformationalism’ or ‘biodigitalism’ need to be articulated to understand how and why his new ecological-systems leadership model is sustainable in a glocalized world, composed of universal globalism of information and communication technology, and indigenous biotechnology and cultural diversities. Leadership for ecological democracy needs to be severely testified in an uneven distribution of power relations at inter- and intra-national and other geographical levels. Noteworthy, grassroots participation and the underlying educational values and social norms of educating schooling children in the ecological democracy model might involve gender, national, political, racial, and skin-biased ideologies. Last but not the least, Peters’ scholarly paper calls for a postmodern cartograph, depicting how the tacit assumptions and the underlying values shape various tenets of educational leadership theories and their inter-relationships in such a glocalized world where globalism and localities unequally interact with each other. The leader-follower duality needs to be replaced by many-to-many modalities with multiple reference points of power relations. I deeply believe the above line of thoughts would be Peter’s follow-up inspiring research works or others’ for further development of leadership studies in education, social, and business organizations/enterprises.

Michael Peters’ insightful and stimulating article maps the course of modern leadership theory to hegemonic power in scientific and public discourses. Leadership theory has moved from modern metaphysical assumptions that individualized and essentialized the leaders’ traits to contemporary demands for leadership’s ecological and biodigital democratization. Leadership must grasp new realities accurately and respond to new challenges appropriately. The article concludes with the crisis leadership for post-apocalyptic survival.

In my view, an organizing principle of leadership thought from antiquity to the present has been the maritime trope of the leader as captain and the led collectivity as ship. In turbulent waters of change, to avoid being storm-tossed, “ships” (business/organization/state/society/the world) need good navigators (political and intellectual leaders) at the helm. Much material in Peters’ article evokes the structure, the thought pattern, of this nautical metaphor: leaders/captains must be good, so, leadership studies explore what qualifies leadership; to decide on good leadership we must also describe the “ship”; leadership sails “ships” in space and time that must be determined (e.g., what characterizes today’s world, what the temporality of the voyage is, what crises push the ship to uncharted waters).

As I extrapolate from Peters’ account, modern leadership theory has itself navigated from havens of heroic and charismatic leadership to those of creative and transformational/transformative leadership. The current is now drawing it to new havens of multipolar and biodigital leadership. Peters’ valuable account offers multiple descriptive and critical entry-points to leadership-theoretical itineraries. It is also meta-critically valuable because it makes more visible the qualifying operations that leadership theory adopts in order to maintain leadership’s extolled modern normativity. To preserve the exceptional valorization of leadership, theory qualifies leadership with valued premodifiers. “Feminist”, “critical” “shared”, “democratic”, “biodigital”, “multipolar” and “ecological” are some premodifiers that sanitize leadership, hold its undesirable older versions in check and preserve leadership’s leading role in global discourses. Leadership theory constantly protects leadership’s bestowed normative status by modifying the premodifiers that transfer to leadership their own normativity (e.g., “biodigital” extends its own, acquired normative power to the leadership that it premodifies). Leadership steers the ship away from risks of shipwrecking and leadership theory specifies what navigation is required for the end destination not to be “the end”.

Without underestimating the distances that are thus covered, I worry that the above pattern of leadership thinking exaggerates the normative possibilities of “interconnected”, “biodigital” and “multipolar”. Attuned to global currency, leadership theory and the new recommendations seem to me to inflate the ethical import of these premodifiers. They better describe the complexity of today’s world but hardly have the intrinsic normative force to prescribe directions or fulfill what current theory expects from them. Revealingly, in Peter’s article, such premodifiers draw their normativity from the time-honoured, modern ethical vocabulary that comprises consensus, respect and tolerance. However, I argue, they do not automatically promote respect and tolerance; even if they did, respect and tolerance are vague, and hardly suffice, say, to safeguard that dissenting “others” will not conveniently be lumped into “far-right” and “anti-” labels of all kinds.¹ Nor do premodifiers ensure ethical consistency; indicatively, the “multipolar” compels, for Kofi Annan (cf. Peters), “new styles of leadership”, “shared and agreed” measures and “fair representation of countries and global citizens”. But how is “fair” meant? As a UN leader, Annan authorized a peace plan that was anything but fair (Anderson, 2008). Double standards and a missing ethical consistency raise concerns about hollow rhetoric. Nor does the premodifier “democratic” entail that deliberations are more than power-determined negotiations and that consensus leads to truth or justice. Concerning the “biodigital”, celebrating it recalls uncritical modern glorifications of just any scientific breakthrough. Science’s historical complicities caution against blind trust.

Peters importantly emphasizes the need for coherent, holistic approaches to aspects not yet addressed. Let me add that a holistic and demanding ethic escapes the confines of leadership premodifiers, while times of possible shipwreck may compel more differentiated² and radical ethical insights. What describes the “ship” cannot prescribe how the “ship” should be navigated.

References

Digital and Data-Driven Educational Leadership

As Peters (2023) indicates, leadership studies cover organizational development and change in terms of knowledge management, governance structures, and intellectual capital. Knowledge management and sharing shape entrepreneurial, organizational, and leadership behavior, articulating human decision processes and social-psychological phenomena that define social anthropology and welfare politics as regards equality, identity, diversity, and inclusion. Collaborative tools and inter-organizational information systems enable virtual teamwork on digital platforms through big data-driven transformation of human resource management, typifying institutionalized rules, professional standards, and organizational structures and performance in virtual educational leadership and management.

The networked nature of educational mechanisms (Jones and Kennedy, 2023; MacDowell and Lock, 2023; Nica, 2018) configures data-driven leadership by use of technology tools in schools throughout teaching and learning processes. Robust infrastructures of professional learning networks are pivotal in monitoring student achievement by enabling individualized instruction, collaboration, and mentoring. Virtual modeling and immersive 3D technologies, deep learning-based image classification and object recognition algorithms, and event modeling and forecasting tools articulate digital pedagogies in smart educational environments. Virtual data modeling and digital twin simulation tools, motion control and visual cognitive algorithms, and deep neural network and spatial computing technologies assist smart mobile pedagogies. Deep and machine learning algorithms, movement and behavior tracking tools, and virtual modeling and geospatial mapping technologies enable educational leadership, shaping student learning. Remote sensing and machine perception technologies, digital twin simulation and visualization modeling tools, and spatial cognition and object tracking algorithms further effective educational processes and experiences.

Virtual reality modeling and synthetic data tools, image processing computational and visual perception algorithms, and immersive 3D and remote sensing technologies (Jones and Kennedy, 2023; MacDowell and Lock, 2023; Rowland et al., 2022) shape educational big data. Spatial cognition and sensor data processing algorithms, digital twin modeling and visual analytics tools, and image recognition and immersive education technologies optimize innovative learning contents. Smart learning analytics harnesses digital twin and remote sensing technologies, object perception and remote sensing algorithms, and data modeling and simulation tools. Cutting-edge smart pedagogies develop on virtual simulation and predictive maintenance tools, spatial computing and remote sensing technologies, and perception and cognition algorithms. Data-driven instructional and managerial leadership integrates spatio-temporal fusion and 3D space mapping algorithms, 3D virtual simulation technologies, and visual perception and virtual navigation tools. Educational performance in terms of mobile learning connectivity requires virtual navigation and deep learning artificial intelligence tools, spatial computing and acoustic environment recognition algorithms, and vision sensing and immersive education technologies. Smart education necessitates image recognition and extended reality technologies, virtual simulation and visual tracking algorithms, and digital twin modeling and ambient scene detection tools.

Immersive visualization systems, predictive modeling and computer vision algorithms, and data visualization and mining tools (MacDowell and Lock, 2023; Nica, 2018; Rowland et al., 2022) are pivotal in engaging learning processes and assessments. Simulation modeling and deep learning-based ambient sound processing tools, immersive virtual and image recognition technologies, and visual perception and multisensor fusion algorithms are instrumental in smart pedagogies. Haptic and biometric sensor technologies, spatial data visualization and simulation modeling tools, and motion planning and context awareness algorithms configure mobile learning patterns. Spatial data acquisition and virtual navigation tools, simulation and virtualization technologies, and decision and control algorithms articulate simulated 3D educational environments. Learning analytics tools, spatial cognition and image processing computational algorithms, and Internet of Things-based digital twins assist big data-driven education. Ambient sound recognition and processing tools, behavioral predictive analytics, and deep learning-based sensing and spatial computing technologies enable personalized professional learning in smart education. Spatial computing and immersive education technologies, predictive geospatial modeling and visual imagery tools, and 3D virtual equipment monitoring systems further data-driven decision-making in teacher leadership skills and student learning needs. Dynamic routing and immersive education technologies, artificial neural network algorithms, and simulation modeling and spatial awareness tools shape smart educational environments.

References

Different Form of Openness

Education has transformed significantly over the past century, and the development in education has been accelerated with the advent of technology. At the same time, the idea of educational leadership has also evolved from the ‘Great Man’ & Trait Theory to the Equity & Diversity Leadership in the Biodigital Era. By reforming the core elements of educational leadership theory, leaders have adopted a more inclusive, participatory, and equitable approach to educational leadership.

The traditional ‘Great Man’ & Trait Theory emphasizes individual leadership traits of prominent leaders in the past. Historically, it has been believed that successful leaders are attributed to naturally born traits such as intelligence, ambition, and charisma. Further, the most critical aspect of the ‘Great Man Theory’ is their belief in a vertical, one-leader-at-the-top structure. This theory often overlooked differences within a school population and meant that only certain groups were encouraged to take up leadership roles.

In contrast, Equity & Diversity Leadership in the Bio-digital Era focuses on creating an equitable and inclusive leadership model. It relies on the strength of openness and collaboration among school stakeholders, such as teachers, staff, and students, as well as building a space for engagement for parents and community members. This new emphasis on equity means that leadership roles and access to education resources will become more equitable, diverse, and inclusive for all students. Further, this approach also encourages learners to become confident, creative, and responsible agents of their own learning and growth. This has changed the narrative from having educators solely focused on student success to incorporating students in the leadership process.

The Equity & Diversity Leadership in the Biodigital Era seeks to lead and shape the future of educational landscapes. Through the integration of technology and data, this model strives to create personalized learning plans that give students the opportunity to reach their full potential. By focusing on the core values of empowerment, engagement, and collaboration, this framework prioritizes diversity and equity. This newly adapted approach to leadership allows both teachers and students to flourish in a safe and inclusive learning environment. Through this model, educators can ensure that every student, regardless of their background, will have the chance to thrive and reach success.

The ecological-systems model of educational leadership can be an effective tool for managing the multipolarity and the production of global public goods in the biodigital future. This model is grounded in the concept of an interconnected educational system, where every component of the system is an integral part of the overall design and operation of the system. Each component (pupil, teacher, administrator, system leader, etc.) contributes to, and is affected by, the operation of the system. Notably, this model has been adopted by educational systems and organizations around the world as a way to enhance collaboration, foster innovation, and optimally balance the roles, responsibilities, and relationships among all stakeholders in the growth and development of the educational system.

In the multipolarity and the production of global public goods in the biodigital future, the ecological-systems model of educational leadership can be a useful tool for managing and coordinating global educational initiatives. By taking a holistic, systemic approach to addressing the challenges of multipolarity and global education delivery, the model can encourage collaboration between the various stakeholders. This will enable the education sector to meet these challenges successfully and provide the necessary public goods that are essential for a sustainable and equitable future.

Moreover, the ecological systems model of educational leadership can also enable the education sector to leverage the power of digital technologies for deeper collaboration and more efficient deployment of resources for global public goods. Through the unified collaboration and utilization of biodigital resources, the model can help to break down the barriers to effective education and reach more remote areas and students for equitable education. By using biodigital technologies and resources, the model can bridge the gap between the classroom and the virtual world, creating an inclusive environment for everyone regardless of geography or socio-economic status.

Ultimately, the benefits of this type of globally-focused educational leadership model extends beyond its local applications – by connecting the dots between the education sector and other global arenas, it helps to not only to create a more sustainable and equitable learning environment but also to build bridges of understanding and cooperation between different nations and societies.

The higher education ecological-system model of leadership is a versatile and essential tool for navigating the rapidly evolving biodigital future. As the world increasingly becomes interconnected through technological advancements, the need for competent and informed leadership with a global perspective has never been more essential.

The specific characteristics of the higher education ecological-system model of leadership, contribute significantly to strengthening the biodiversity and biocultural dynamics of the biodigital future. Through its emphasis on highlighting socially-responsible leadership, it seeks to promote the notion of global public goods which emphasize creating social, cultural and environmental benefits. This model aims to establish a synergetic relationship between bio-diversity and solidarity by creating a ‘biodigital space’ which can accommodate a diverse set of interests. Through an emphasis on collaboration, the model aims to promote interdisciplinary problem solving, utilizing a wide range of technological and humanistic resources in order to tackle numerous global challenges.

The model is characterized by its holistic approach, which involves connecting numerous local and global networks to create a holistic and collaborative team. Through this framework, policy makers, educators and students are able to work together in order to identify needs, create and implement policies, and ultimately build a better future. In this way, the higher education ecological-system of leadership serves as a main pillar in producing global public goods.

The collective potential of a higher education ecological-system of leadership is highly beneficial in producing global public goods. It provides an effective, interconnected platform which bridges gaps between countries, cultures and social classes, thus unifying the world in tackling the issues of sustainability, resource management, and science and technology. By bringing together knowledge, resources, and innovation, the ecodel can help mobilize global action and partnerships to create tangible solutions to issues faced by our global community.

Not only does the collective potential of a higher education ecological system of leadership create an inclusive and interdisciplinary approach in problem-solving, but it also encourages the use of innovative and diverse thinking. The framework allows for individuals to operate with creativity when designing policies, creating new ideas and developing new strategies. This creates a more holistic and open-minded approach when it comes to the development of global public goods, allowing for more efficiency and greater chances for success.

In conclusion, the higher education ecological-system of leadership allows for a smoother transition from idea to implementation. This collective approach is invaluable in the production of global public goods, as it provides a space for diverse voices, ideas and perspectives. By harnessing the collective potential of the framework, countries around the world can benefit from the co-creation of necessary resources and policy-making.

Leadership as Manaakitanga

Leadership and its relationship to power (mana) are central concerns in te Ao Māori, the world of the Indigenous people of Aotearoa|New Zealand. In what follows, I reflect, as a person of Māori descent,¹ on the current discourse of leadership, in universities in particular, and an alternative concept of leadership offered by mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledges).

References

Though there is no consensus on the definition of leadership, the fundamental message of leadership is about interactive influence or impact, which means that leadership is more than leading and following. Whether the leader is a great, charismatic, transformational, inclusive, servant, authentic, moral, to name just a few adjectives in the literature, person or not, the successful leader shares the similarities and differences across cultures and jurisdictions, which cannot be simply constructed into a term with one adjective, which is evidenced in the leadership studies in the past. There is no denying that leadership studies encompass a wide range of theories and perspectives on leadership in various sectors such as politics, business and education. The study of leadership has also evolved to include a greater focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion. As this paper addresses the development of leadership studies from the Great Man theory to the crisis leadership for post-apocalyptic survival, the relatively linear picture is illustrated to better understand their important focuses of each construct in the development of society, meanwhile, critical views are provided to offer the author’s unique perspectives on the evolution of leadership studies. The author discusses some main leadership studies, including leadership models, such as transformational and transformative leadership, critiques of the feminist point of view from the societal, political, economic and ethical contexts, which presents the critical view of the development and formation of leadership scholarship.

In addition, literature shows that leadership studies tend to be normative, focusing much on how individual leaders should behave rather than how they actually behave and interact with people in practice. This would create unrealistic expectations for leaders and overlook the complex and dynamic nature of leadership in organizations. Also, the current leadership studies are dominantly in the western contexts with individualistic model of leadership, and lack the diversity of other cultures and in-depth contextual investigation. Leadership studies are inclined to create one-dimensional leadership terminology theoretically, rather than depict the nuanced nature of leadership practices in the real world.

Undoubtedly, no matter it is called vuca or bani time, or biodigital era as the author names in the paper, the everlasting changing world leads to new opportunities and challenges, and the field of leadership studies is constantly evolving, with new theories and perspectives emerging as researchers continue to explore the nuanced nature of leadership in organizations. Leadership studies would be more focused upon successful or effective leadership to inform the practices and improve the organization. On one hand, the importance of using digital technologies to enhance leadership effectiveness and promote collaboration and innovation has been strengthened. On the other hand, the emotional intelligence of digital leaders requires more attention.

As Kouzes and Posner (2012: 329) illustrate that leadership is not just about giving orders and making decisions, not about position or title, it's about having a vision and the ability to inspire others to achieve the shared vision, and it is “everyone’s business”. By addressing the critiques in this paper and expanding the field to include a more diverse range of perspectives and experiences on the future research agenda, leadership studies continue to evolve and would provide research-informed insights into successful leadership in organizations.

Reference

Peters provides a profound analysis of leadership studies, focusing on the dominant approaches and assumptions that underpin much of the research and practice in the field. He questions who leads and who follows in the field of leadership studies. He traces the evolution of leadership from Thomas Carlyle’s “heroes” and the Great Man Theory and Max Weber’s legitimate authority to the leadership of the twenty-first century, which argues for ethical and responsible leadership practises that promote social justice and sustainability. Peters explains the Great Man theory, assuming that people are born leaders and therefore born with specific traits that make them great leaders, while legitimate authority provides three formulations in terms of traditional, legal-rational, and charismatics. Importantly, charisma is not something that can be taught or learned.

Instead, it is a trait that certain individuals are born with. Rather than on replying to formal positions of power or authority, charismatic leaders possess a unique type of authority or influence that is built on the trust and admiration of their followers. Peters criticises the Great Man Theory of Leadership as being founded on a defective and limited understanding of leadership that disregards the social, cultural, and historical contexts in which leadership occurs. He argues that effective leadership involves a grasp of the complex and interconnected systems of power and knowledge that shape our societies, and that this requires a nuanced and critical approach to leadership that transcends the basic concepts of intrinsic traits and abilities. Peters describes the genesis of the field by proposing three phases of growth. Originally, leadership studies were established in the United States in the 1940s. Second, during the 1990s, the field has flourished and proliferated across industry and the public sector, with leadership receiving a great deal of attention, particularly with regard to questions of effective school leadership and professional development. Within this period, distributed or shared leadership is emphasised in schools, with an emphasis on equity and leadership. Finally, in the last two decades, school leadership for social justice, equity, and diversity has been advocated. It emphasises accessibility and social inclusion. Peters argues that a more critical and inclusive style of leadership is required, one that considers the perspectives and experiences of diverse individuals and groups. He proposes a move towards a more democratic and participatory type of leadership that emphasises collaboration, collective decision-making, and social justice. Overall, Peters’ article is a thought-provoking critique of the area of leadership studies, and it demonstrates how crucial it is, in a rapidly changing world, to rethink our assumptions and approaches to leadership. Equity and diversity leadership appears to involve encouraging and advocating for fairness, inclusivity, and equitable opportunity for people of diverse backgrounds, identities, and abilities in numerous settings, including as school, the workplace, the government, and society. Equality and diversity leaders strive to establish a safe, welcoming, and respectful environment in which all individuals feel appreciated and empowered to contribute their unique ideas and experiences. They aim to eliminate discrimination, prejudice, and institutional obstacles that prevent marginalised groups from reaching their full potential.

Michael A. Peters has presented a thoughtful and comprehensive review of the field of leadership studies. It’s clear from the review that the leadership itself is transforming, with emerging forms of democratic, systemic, ecological, participatory leadership. It’s also apparentthat the field is fragmented, and that encouragingly who leads is changing, as more women and people of color are taking on leadership roles. The current time of crisis and transformation, “post-normal times” (Sardar, 2019), has also seen the appearance of many authoritarian political and business leaders. Their values are diametrically opposed to the new leadership and the new cultural developments. A shared focus of authoritarian leaders across the world appears to be reversing what Inglehart called “the silent revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s, the triple threat of women’s rights, civil rights, and environmentalism (Inglehart, 1977; Norris & Inglehart, 2019). This is presented as a return to “order” and even greatness. The “cultural war” arguably acts as a convenient smokescreen for a powerful elite to ensure the entire economic system operates in their favor.

There is no question that, as Peters suggests, any approach to leadership “is constrained by and must still confront the effects of current political economy of late capitalism and its subjectivity effects.” One of the great challenges of these “subjectivity effects” is the rising tide of hopelessness, the so-called crisis of despair (Case & Deaton, 2020), the mental health crisis in younger generations (Barry, 2023), the sense of overwhelm at the “polycrisis” (Morin & Kern, 1999), at once economic, environmental, political, and cultural, and the lack of any sense of possibility for better futures (Montuori & Donnelly, 2022).

The intention with what we are calling Transformative Leadership is to argue that in a time of transformation, everybody’s actions, consciously or unconsciously, contribute to a global direction and thus to the creation of the future. In a system that is far from equilibrium, small action can have considerable ripple effects (Briggs & Peat, 1989). This is literally leading by example. The transition from the Modern Age to a new and as yet fully articulated age requires a fundamental rethinking of the assumptions that inform the understanding and practice of leadership. In that sense, it does require a philosophical reflection and revisioning of key concepts that seem to have exhausted their usefulness in their present configuration. Drawing on systems and complexity thinking, feminist thought, and a number of the other intellectual threads addressed in Michael Peters’ article, Donnelly and I attempted to create an orienting synthesis that could be foundational for citizen-leaders, and foundational also for an education for a new world (Montuori & Donnelly, 2014, 2017). The synthesis also involves revisioning and recontextualizing concepts such as creativity, too long associated with its own “Great Man” view, in this case the Lone Genius, and pointing to recent contextual, relational and systemic developments and directions (Montuori, 2020; Montuori & Purser, 1995). While such an integrative effort is clearly a substantial challenge and inevitably reflects the values of the authors, we hope there will be more of these kinds of integrative works that attempt to point towards new possibilities and potentials.

References

Leadership as Contested and Dynamic

The idea of leadership has long fascinated communities around the world. We have always admired those who possess meritorious qualities that makes them to stand out, enabling them to make a distinctive contribution to their society. We look to such leaders to guide us through difficult circumstances, helping us to solve the problems we ourselves feel unable to. And, indeed, there have always been people who are ready to assume the mantle of leadership, in some cases, presuming it be rightfully their responsibility, while, on other occasions, feeling that the burden of leadership has been imposed on them. Leadership thus comes in many different forms and is exercised in a wide variety of ways through a diverse set of motivations. As ubiquitous as the idea of leadership has been, it has only been theorized in ways that are explicit and systematic over the past century. Although philosophers such as Thomas Carlyle had written extensively on the traits of ‘great men’, possessing remarkable gifts, capable exceptional acts of heroism, it is only in the past century that leadership has become a critical topic in the social sciences, subject to a great deal of empirical and theoretical interrogations. Arguably, Max Weber’s writings on rationalization of society generated a great deal of this interest in rethinking the notion of authority and the ways in which its multiple forms are linked to the requirement of leadership in the modern bureaucratic state. The accounts that have emerged in the Weberian traditions have thus sought to show how charismatic leadership operates within a legal-rational framework of the state, though drawing at the same time on the cultural and political traditions of a society. This suggests that the exercise of leadership varies across traditions and does not admit any universal characterization. It renders misleading attempts at providing some supposedly objective accounts of leadership grounded in large amount of data that many organizational psychologists and administrative theorists have collected to generate a generalized view of leadership, often overlooking the contingencies of the conditions under which leadership is exercised and is recognized as such by followers.

The idea of transformational leadership recognizes the importance of context- specificity, seeking to understand leadership in relational terms, highlighting the need to focus on the nature of the relationship between leaders and followers, and how it could be enhanced. James McGregor Burns was thus right in emphasizing the ways in which leadership is linked to the culture of the organization and the extent to which the followers are prepared to acknowledge the authority of the leaders. It becomes possible therefore for some individuals not to view themselves as leaders but behave in ways that are recognized as acts of leadership, consistent with the interests of the followers, especially when these acts are seen to be contributing to the realization of the moral and strategic visions of the organization.

What this suggests is the acts of leadership are not only highly contingent and contested but also dynamic, dependent on the normative traditions of a society or an organization. We cannot expect leadership to be viewed, exercised, and valued in the same way across the world’s diverse cultures. Different epistemic and religious traditions are likely to recognize acts of leadership in radically different ways consistent with their normative orientations. Equally, as new ways of thinking about social relations, such as feminism and decoloniality, emerge and as new global conditions emerge, relating, for example, to ecological crises, bio digital futures and the shifting geopolitics of the world, new ways of conceptualizing the leadership become necessary. And this insight, in my view, is the major contribution that Michael Peters makes in his paper.

Towards a Postdigital Praxis of Leadership

Almost a decade ago, my dean asked me to teach the Motivation and Teamwork course at the Master of Informatics study programme. As I began to study available literature, I immediately started hating the work. Proposed curriculum, recommended readings, similar courses at other institutions, and all that jazz, have mostly been about the alleged superiority of teamwork over older work organization models, about the alleged superiority of leadership over management, and, of course, about praising contemporary corporate models and especially the start-up ethos. Reading about people who have somehow managed to pull themselves by their own bootstraps, my students and I felt like failures. It seemed that, whatever we do, we will never reach immortals such as Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg. I am a loser for working this low-paying teaching job, and my students are losers for wasting their time attending my lectures. If we were worth anything at all, we’d already have had taken matters in our own hands and become dirt rich, dirt famous, or ideally both. Leadership studies seem to have little mercy for regular people – in trait theories, because we don’t possess ‘superior’ leadership traits; in multipolar theories, because we can’t grasp so much complexity; and so on. No mercy for the average person – long live the specials!

I could not say no to teaching Motivation and Teamwork, but no-one could control what I was doing in my classroom. Over the years, I slowly scraped leadership theories to their very basics and started talking about things as diverse as Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984) theory of capital and Guy Standing’s (2011) theory of the precariat. I talked about my then-recent inquiry in education and technological unemployment (Peters at al. 2019). I honestly told my students that I hated the course, tried to explain why, and opened discussions.

Speaking of political economy, my students have argued that teamwork is mostly interpreted as work on time-limited projects. Companies employ on fixed-time contracts, which typically last between 1 and 2 years. They earn good money, but they spend more than half of their career in constant search for the next gig, and no bank will give them a mortgage. So goodbye weekends, holidays, and home ownership. Students have testified that buzzwords and concepts such as invitational leadership, transformational leadership, leadership by example, charisma, and so on, have often turned into caricature. In the words of one student working at a call centre: “They promoted the dumbest and the most obedient of us and gave him a few books about leadership. Looking at him trying to lead by example was just sad; he blurted buzzwords, and frantically walked all over the place, without any sense of direction. Yet, he was not a bad guy – like the rest of us, he was just trying to survive in this crazy place.” In recent years, students have also started to describe the various horrors arriving from ‘automated leadership’, as the only feedback and leadership that some of them receive arrives from automated systems rather than human beings.

When my students have finally opened up, we started to move beyond complaints. Working in informatics, they have participated in productive examples of the flat hierarchies arising from many-to-many modalities. They have talked about the pros and cons of deliberation that is central to the ecological model of leadership: deliberation is good, they said, unless you’re on a deadline. They have extensively discussed the pros and cons of ‘automated leadership’ – a notion that, in our posthumanist times, needs to be taken seriously. Speaking of these very contemporary developments, quite a few students have stressed the advantages of earlier models of leadership – the importance of human touch, the enjoyment of charisma, and so on. My students’ views seem post-historical, or even ahistorical, as they tend to take what works (and feels appropriate) from all available leadership theories.

This is perfectly fine. As I often tell my students, leadership styles heavily depend on context. Leaders such as pilots and boat captains need to be authoritative – in these few seconds of landing a plane, or mooring a boat in the storm, disobedience equals disaster. Political leaders, unless in times of emergency, will do best with democratic leadership – as far as themes such as legislation are concerned, it is important to receive input from the widest available pool of people affected by the legislation. Artists and designers, especially those who are not squeezed by tight deadlines, will do best with one or another form of laissez faire leadership, which allows for maximum creativity. And so on… Given this context-dependent nature of leadership, our postdigital society requires new forms of postdigital leadership. So what may these new forms of leadership look like?

Each context calls for a different type of leadership, so my own rhetorical question does not have an answer. Yet using postdigital theory, it is possible to ‘attack’ the problem at a more fundamental level; that of theory and methodology. “The postdigital is hard to define; messy; unpredictable; digital and analog; technological and non-technological; biological and informational. The postdigital is both a rupture in our existing theories and their continuation.” Jandrić et al. (2018: 895) Furthermore, leadership is never just about theory or efficiency; it is also, importantly, about people’s feelings (Jandrić 2019). In a postdigital context, therefore, leadership is a praxis that needs to be developed according to challenges of our day: from automation through bioinformation to ecology (just to mention a few).

I am grateful to Michael Peters for writing this critical review of the field of leadership studies, and I am even more grateful for the opportunity to respond to his work. The review offers extremely valuable insights into theories of leadership, which, as my students have also indicated, are very useful in our current context. However, our postdigital condition is simultaneously a rupture and continuation, so we also need to develop new approaches, theories, and practices that correspond to challenges of today and tomorrow. We should not feel like failures for teaching and learning instead of tinkering in our Mums’ garages; we should not subscribe to a capitalist ideology of leadership that makes us frantically jump from one gig to another without security and meaning; we should give a lot of thought to posthuman leadership practices; and so on. Leadership needs to be efficient, human, meaningful; above all, it should allow a decent life. In our supercomplex postdigital world, this is not an easy task. But we do need to start from somewhere, and Michael’s critical review of the field of leadership studies is an excellent starting point for this inquiry. Once again, Michael’s fascinating penchant to open new research directions has given us a lot of food for thought and a direction for future research!

References

Leadership in a Complex Society: Aotearoa New Zealand

Most theories about leadership tend to a universalist account of what makes a good leader, even my favourite, Sergiovanni’s notion of the servant leader makes some assumptions about the generalisability of a form of leadership which focuses on service to the other rather than self-aggrandisement. But I want to argue that leadership is culturally and socially differentiated: leadership in a country at war will differ from that of a country dedicated to neo-liberal values of self-interest; a community struggling to exist might promote different forms of leadership to those of Gross National Happiness as found in Bhutan.

I want to take this argument a bit further and argue that ideas of leadership are derived from cultural ontologies: the stories we tell ourselves and tell our children have a profound influence on how we choose and perceive our leaders.

In countries with complex social histories, ie those with significant minorities effective leaders need to be able to negotiate, perhaps mobilise, the traditions of leadership which are deeply embedded in their differing communities.

This is not an optional extra for my country, Aotearoa New Zealand. The indigenous people, Māori are Treaty partners with Pākehā (New Zealanders of European origin) since 1840 in the governance of the country. As Maori have become more confident politically and culturally they demand and expect that their cultural traditions, including those of leadership, will be respected. Maori of course have had to recognise and work with Pākehā ideas of leadership for two centuries. We also have a significant number of citizens whose ancestry lies in the Pacific Islands, and who bring with them their own cultural ideas and processes. Not only is the recognition of the way of thinking of the other politically and culturally necessary, as in many countries with substantial minorities, the future lies in recognising that the Māori and Pacific peoples have a far younger demographic profile than that of the aging white population.

Aotearoa is clearly unique in its cultural make-up but it might form an interesting study for any ethnically or culturally diverse country which needs to take account of the patterns of leadership within their own context.

From a Pākehā perspective many leaders within the Māori world are almost invisible from outside it, relationships with the Pākehā world not being of primary importance. The traditional key elements to Maori leadership are genealogical, personal attributes like courage, or oratorical skills, and management of human resources in war (Winiata 1967). Political leaders at the contemporary interface can manifest quite other characteristics. For instance, they might not be people of particularly important lineage, but be educationally outstanding, business leaders, or adept in managing the Pākehā political world. A strong expectation of whakaiti, remaining humble, and mahi (work) for the people, remains.

The notions of leadership for people from the Pacific Islands vary according to the traditions of their islands. For New Zealanders of Samoan descent, the matai title and the tulafale (orator, historian), positions are still important, as is the role of the pastor and his wife, the faletua. Educated people in the professions are also accorded respect (and this might be shown by the award of a matai title), but always within the confines of a society that values age above youth.

For New Zealanders of Tongan origin, the royal family of Tonga is still very important, and so is the Fāhu, the eldest sister, who embodies the traditions of matrilineal government in that society. Other islands have slightly different traditions, and an adequate leader in Aotearoa New Zealand should be cognisant of these variations, if not closely familiar with the details.

This may seem to be an account of a social form of leadership which echoes that of the English or European aristocracy. It is not. The overwhelming significance of ‘vā’ the traditional and still upheld sense of obligation, applicable to individuals, families, and tribal groups means that responsibility for well being is the sine qua non of leadership. This can be seen as nepotism, but in its most developed form, constitutes a feeling and practice of reciprocal generosity which transcends individuals and generations.

This is a necessarily crude account of some of the major leadership traditions in one country. The early failure of the vaccination roll-out to reach Māori and Pacific people in the country while it was locked into Pākehā notions of health bureaucracy is a case in point: the success of Māori and Pacific community leaders in providing and encouraging their respective populations to ‘get the jab’ was spectacularly more successful.

Reference

A response rather than a review is a different kind academic task from the normal critique called for in these editorial matters. It focuses more on the positive side than the negative and views the paper as something that can serve as a platform for development. Peters rough chronology and genealogy exposes the logic of the development of the discourse from the individual ‘great man’ leader consider to be prior to any system and separate from it to an ecological approach that considers leadership largely as a consequence of the system providing constraints and determining possibilities. This is a fundamental and complete reversal of the logic of leadership in the few hundred years of the discourse that echoes a broader set of changes for understanding many social phenomena: from the lonely heroic individual to the embedded and interacting system comprised of its relationships, webs and circuits. The sum of its parts is greater than the whole. It’s a relational ontology where the primary focus lies in analyzing relations rather than its components. Leadership in this approach thus lies in understanding the ‘health’ (balance, harmony, efficiency etc) and its sustainability as a system, rather than the qualities of the leader which is only a very small part of it. The system is the interacting, living, interacting community considered as a complex network or interconnected system that comprises several different layers of funding, resources, communication, decision making that is controlled by both internal and external factors. It is therefore a delicate balance between factors that indicates a dynamism with different cycles such as yearly cohort intakes of students, recruitment of new staff, annual budget review, and so on. Responsive leadership is, therefore, based on an understanding of the system inputs and outputs, of the constitutive parts of the system at the individual and collective levels and non-teaching, non-learning parts of the system like discipline, security, safety, cleaning, food, grounds, waste disposal etc. It is possible to talk of dynamics and resilience and even disturbance. Most crucially, the ecosystem approach allows us to make socio-cultural diversity a feature of the system within the social and economic environment more generally. The school ecosystem might be comprised of different interacting systems including 1. The policy environment; 2. The community (parents and businesses; 3. The school infrastructure (buildings, classrooms and grounds); 4. The school codes (eg., digital facilities), 5. The teaching staff, 6. The curriculum; 7. Student welfare, 8 Student learning.

Ecosystem leadership is not merely the management of these interacting parts but the active enhancement and smooth running of the whole in the name of the intangibles: school spirit, tone, impact and engagement. At the system level we also be at last to talk about the school in ethical and aesthetical terms that reflects the organism and the way it functions.

Having been a secondary school teacher, a school counsellor, a member of various university departments, a director of a center and head of international relations I find this model very productive indeed and one that is also meaningfully linked to questions of sustainability and the Millennium Goals. This model is a basis for a more empirical approach that not only charts resource flows, or learning goals, or knowledge flows but opens itself for further development in a data-intensive society.