No abstract

The students and practitioners who attend our leadership classes and our professional development seminars now will be doing most of their leadership in the 21st century. They need to understand the concept of leadership that will operate in the 21st century. They need to be able to practice a new paradigm of leadership that will operate in the 21st century, not the old paradigm of leadership that has dominated the 20th century. The author looks at pst models of leader development programs and future models of leadership development programs in an effort to demonstrate the difference between the two paradigms of leadership.

Executive SummaryThe industrial view of leadership is inadequate for educational purposes because it does not address the nature of the complex social relationships among people who practice leadership, nor does it accurately accommodate their purposes, motives, and intentions. A distinction among the practices of training, development, and education provides a means to explore an understanding of these complex social relationships relative to the preparation of leaders for the future. The content of leadership education in the future will cover three broad categories: the evolution of social change and development, the processes that influence social development, and the dynamics of human nature in change processes. Leadership education is aimed at producing citizens for a democratic society.

Abstract:In this article, the author lists three problems that make any serious discussion about the ethics of leadership a very difficult undertaking. He then proposes a new, postindustrial paradigm of leadership. Using that understanding of leadership, two different sets of ethical analyses of leadership are possible: (1) those concerned with the process of leadership and (2) those concerned with the content of leadership (the changes proposed by the leaders and collaborators). In the end, the author suggests that the industrial paradigm of ethics (the 18th century liberal philosophy) is inadequate to deal with the ethical decision making that leaders and collaborators must do in the 21st century. Thus, a postindustrial paradigm of ethics must be developed to enable leaders and collaborators to make the tough ethical choices that will be demanded in the new millennium.

In this article, Rost compares and contrasts two paradigms of leadership and reduces their central meaning to one word. The industrial paradigm of leadership has been centered on an individual--a leader. The postindustrial paradigm will be centered on a relationship of leaders and collaborators. As we enter the twenty-first century, leadership scholars and practitioners are moving from understanding leadership as an individual to viewing it as a relationship.