1

LEADERSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURY The art of leadership seminar presented by Knightsbridge at the Epcor Centre in Calgary on November 7th , 2011 was the latest to take advantage of the increasing popular appetite for anything on this subject. The speakers included Patrick Lencioni on teamwork and organizational development; Robin Sharma on lead without a title; former General Rick Hillier on leading change and people development; Stephen Shapiro on leading a culture of innovation; Susan Scott on fierce leadership; and Leonard Brody on the myth of generations. Regardless of whether their names were familiar to myself or anyone else in Governance all these gurus had written books on their particular area of leadership dynamics. Which speaker was more important in the study of modern day leadership; any listener would be hard pressed to prove. But the number of experts and their topics did prove that in todays fast changing world there is a constant search for the key to successful leadership whether in the public, private or voluntary sector. The ever changing world brought on by globalization has necessitated this search for successful leaders. But what is globalization? We can describe it in terms of being the result of a technological revolution, centered around informational technologies (Castells, 2000). A revolution which continues to reshape, at an accelerated pace, the basis for the worlds society. The result is that economies throughout the world have become globally interdependent in what Castells describes as a new form of relationship between economy, state and society (p. 1). Underlying this new global economy is a restructured system of capitalism which requires a greater flexibility in management and leadership in all sectors. Firms have become more decentralized; there is more networking of firms both internally and in their relationships to other firms; capital has become paramount to labour; there is increased individualization and

diversification of working relationships; states have intervened to deregulate markets and to undo the welfare state; there is a greatly increased global competition both to secure markets and to accumulate capital. The restructuring of the capitalist system has led to a global integration of the financial markets, the rise of the Asian Pacific as the new, dominant manufacturing centre, the economic unification of Europe, the diversification and then disintegration of the third World, the emergence of a regional North American economy, the transformation of Russia and the former soviet area of influence into market economies, and the incorporation of valuable segments of economies throughout the world into an interdependent system working as a unit in real time (p. 2). Whether globalization or globalism (Saul, 2004) is losing its driving force on the world economy and society is a debatable issue. But its impact on the way we view leadership and it attributes has been enormous. The very events that Saul admits to having happened as a result of globalism; civil services being shrunk ,public and private sectors being deregulated, markets released, taxes cut and budgets balanced (Saul, p. 36) will ensure that changes in leadership style will have to continue to occur in all 3 sectors. While he yearns for yesterdays nation state looking after citizens from cradle to grave that era has passed forever. Which is precisely why the so-called Occupy Wall Street Movement and its offshoots will shortly run out of steam. It is a protest against the loss of that past type of state and the benefits those protesters would have been entitled to under its largesse. But what Saul has emphasized as the dark side of globalisms seemingly preference of corporate structure over people resonates with the majority of the worlds citizens. These corporate structures he correctly describes as seeking profits by limiting personal choices (Saul, p. 37).

In that regard he believes that only the nation state can protect the rights and freedom of choice of the individual citizen. Globalism to Saul has weakened the nation state in favour of the global institution and thus has weakened democracy in the process. In the current crisis in Europe over the Greece financial difficulties and bailout attempts Saul must be taking bows for his stand against Globalism based on the destruction of the nation state. Papandreou lost the ability to defend the rights of Greek citizens against the European Banks. Recognition that Greeces entrance into the ECM came with many restrictions on Greek sovereignty came too late to help Greeks. Now it appears that only Greek withdrawal from the ECM will restore democracy and citizen rights. Rather than nationalism and the nation states (being) stronger than they had been when globalization began (Saul, p. 38) it appears the world is in a middle zone where there is growing resistance to the power of the global institutions and corporate firms and a search for more state sovereignty. But our return to the past paramountcy of the nation state is a distant image. While there are isolated examples of national governments trying to opt out of globalism the tide has surged too far for it not to affect even the remotest parts of the world. Perhaps only isolated dictatorships like North Korea are positioned to resist globalization.