Contemporary Large-scale Leadership: What Is to Be Done? [1]

ABSTRACT

?

This article delves into an analysis of Lenin’s vanguard model within the contemporary landscape of large-scale leadership practices, particularly amidst the backdrop of disruptive changes across geopolitical, cultural, demographic, technological, and behavioral dimensions. Employing Foucault’s methodologies of archaeology and genealogy, the article elucidates insights derived from Lenin’s considerations, emphasizing the necessity of a coherent theoretical foundation capable of transcending “economistic” ideologies. Furthermore, it highlights the pivotal role played by large-scale leaders in navigating the complexities of a global world, leveraging digital technologies to facilitate enhanced communication, and integrating ethical considerations into their strategic frameworks. Moreover, the article underscores a paradigm shift from traditional centralized and hierarchical leadership models towards more collaborative, inclusive, adaptive, and distributed approaches - deemed essential for addressing the multifaceted challenges of contemporary society. In conclusion, it outlines avenues for future research in the realm of large-scale leadership and theoretical praxis, stressing the imperative need for a theoretical framework and structural dispositifs that empowers leaders to adeptly respond to disruptive transformations.

Keywords: Lenin’s Vanguard Model, Large-Scale Leadership, Foucault’s Archaeology and Genealogy, Leadership Theory, Digital Transformation.

?

Introduction

?

The study of leadership has undergone a profound evolution over the centuries, transitioning from a focus on the inherent traits of individuals to a broader understanding of the dynamic interactions within complex socio-political contexts. Initially, leadership theories concentrated on identifying specific traits that were thought to predispose individuals to effective leadership (Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959; Carlyle, 1840). This trait theory, which emerged in the early 20th century, posited that certain qualities such as charisma, intelligence, decisiveness, and sociability were innate to effective leaders (Northouse, 2021; Judge & Piccolo, 2002).

As research progressed, the emphasis shifted from inherent qualities to the behaviors and styles exhibited by leaders. The behavioral theory, prominent in the 1940s and 1950s, argued that effective leadership could be defined by specific, learnable behaviors. This period saw the development of models such as Lewin’s leadership styles - authoritative, democratic, and laissez-faire - which emphasized the ways in which leaders interact with their followers, suggesting that leadership effectiveness stemmed from behavior rather than inherent traits (Bass, 1990; Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939).

By the 1960s, the introduction of contingency theory further refined the understanding of leadership. This theory posited that the effectiveness of a leadership style was contingent upon the context, suggesting that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to leadership. Instead, the success of a leader depended on various situational factors including the nature of the task and the dynamics among group members (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969; Fiedler, 1964).

The late 20th century witnessed the emergence of theories that focused on the impacts of leaders on larger groups and entire organizations, moving towards concepts of transformational and transactional leadership. Transformational leadership, which emphasizes vision, inspiration, and change, posits that leaders can transform their followers by motivating them to exceed their own interests for the sake of the group (Avolio & Bass, 2021; Bass & Riggio, 2020). Transactional leadership, on the other hand, is based on a straightforward exchange process where follower compliance is traded for rewards (Judge & Piccolo, 2020; Bass, 1985).

As the complexity of the environment increased, systems theory began to influence leadership thought, positioning leadership as a practice of managing the interdependencies and their systemic interactions (Mitleton-Kelly, 2020). Concurrently, network theory began to reshape traditional leadership paradigms, promoting an understanding of leaders as nodes within broader interconnected systems, where influence is distributed across networks rather than centralized (Borgatti & Halgin, 2021). This evolution in thought underscores the need for leaders to understand and navigate complex networks and systems, adapting their strategies to be more integrative and collaborative in order to effectively manage the dynamic and interconnected challenges of the contemporary world.

The global scale of contemporary relationships has necessitated the development of cross-cultural leadership theories, which recognize that effective leadership varies significantly across different cultural backgrounds, influenced by diverse norms and expectations about power, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance (Taras et al., 2020; House et al., 2004).

Most recently, the digital revolution has introduced digital and e-Leadership theories, focusing on the unique challenges and opportunities of leading in the digital age. These theories address the necessities of managing virtually, influencing through digital platforms, social midia, and leveraging technology to coordinate initiatives across large, dispersed groups (Avolio, Kahai, & Dodge, 2001).

Together, these developments illustrate a significant shift in leadership studies to a complex understanding that incorporates interactions between leaders, followers, contexts, and technologies. This comprehensive view is crucial for addressing the intricate challenges of leading diverse and geographically dispersed groups in today’s interconnected and rapidly changing world (Northouse, 2021; Osland, Li, & Wang, 2006).

Moreover, these dynamics present unique challenges for leaders who must navigate a highly fluid and often decentralized environment. Traditional leadership models, primarily designed for more stable and hierarchical contexts, frequently fall short in addressing the diverse and dynamic nature of contemporary global interactions (Hernandez, Long, & Sitkin, 2021; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). This evolving context demands that leaders rethink their strategies and develop capabilities that are adaptable to a variety of cultural, technological, and political pressures.

In this context, both old and new dilemmas arise concerning the understanding and application of large-scale leadership as one attempts to adapt traditional models to the realities of the digital age. Ultimately, digital platforms and technologies have transformed the way leaders communicate, influence, and manage, necessitating a shift from conventional face-to-face interactions to digital engagements that often occur in real-time on a global scale. In addition, this transformation had led to a reevaluation of the principles and fundamentals of leadership, where direct control is less feasible and cultural diversity is more pronounced (Cunha, Rego, & Vaccaro, 2021; Bennett & Olney, 2020).

Furthermore, the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world complicates the geopolitical landscape, introducing a variety of leadership challenges. In this environment, leaders must not only be adept at technology but also at navigating a complex array of cultural, economic, and political forces. The interaction of these forces can influence political strategies and leadership effectiveness, requiring leaders to possess a sophisticated understanding of global dynamics along with the ability to think strategically across borders (Mendenhall et al., 2022; Fitzgerald & MacCormack, 2021).

Thus, the question is twofold: firstly, there is a need to develop new leadership theories that can effectively address the challenges of leading in a technologically advanced and culturally diverse global context. Secondly, there is an urgent need for organizational dispositifs that leaders can adopt to navigate the complexities of a multipolar world. This calls for a comprehensive reassessment of how leadership is conceptualized, developed, and exercised, ensuring that it is robust enough to handle the demands of contemporary multipolar and digital dynamics (Tegarden, Tegarden, & Sheetz, 2022; Hernandez, Long, & Sitkin, 2021).

In “What Is to Be Done?” Lenin (1902) provides a fascinating lens through which to examine contemporary leadership practices, especially in the context of large-scale and transformative leadership dynamics. Lenin advocates for a highly organized approach to leadership and transformative activity, emphasizing the need for a “vanguard” leadership structure to lead the proletariat with a clear and theoretically informed strategy. This perspective offers valuable insights for today’s leaders who must navigate complex multipolar and digital landscapes (Khurana & Nohria, 2021; Kellerman, 2021).

Furthermore, Lenin’s critique of “economicism” - the reduction of political strategy to mere economic factors or facts associated with conjunctural spontaneities - can be paralleled with contemporary critiques of leadership approaches that are overly focused on short-term metrics or profits at the expense of long-term strategy and ethical considerations. Today’s leaders are often at the helm of vast, interconnected networks where reductionist approaches are inadequate to manage complex, multi-dimensional challenges effectively (Porter & Kramer, 2021).

Exploring the relevance of his theories in contemporary contexts (1902) also involves examining the role of ideology and ethics in leadership. Lenin believed that a deep commitment to ideological clarity and the moral imperatives of the cause were crucial for effective large scale leadership. This aspect of his thought prompts a reevaluation of current leadership ethics and the importance of aligning political practices with broader, more holistic goals that consider social impact and sustainability (Ciulla, 2022).

Additionally, Lenin’s leadership approach was intrinsically linked to educating and elevating the consciousness of the masses. This element of his theory can be applied to contemporary leadership practices in the form of empowering and engaging social agents through transparent communication and inclusive strategies. In today’s digital age, where information is readily accessible and communication instantaneous, leaders possess the tools to effectively educate and mobilize their constituencies. However, they require strategic insight to ensure that their approaches are ethically sound, theoretically consistent, and culturally competent (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2021).

By revisiting Lenin’s theoretical contributions, contemporary leaders, scholars, and intellectuals can gain insights into the importance of theory-driven practice, the integration of ethical considerations into strategic decision-making, and the potential of informed leadership to effectively navigate and influence complex contemporary environments. This exploration underscores the ongoing relevance of historical perspectives in enriching our understanding of large-scale leadership in a rapidly evolving global context.

?

An archeogenealogical anaylsis

?

In conducting a comprehensive study of the evolution of leadership theories, incorporating Foucault’s methodologies of archaeology and genealogy provides a profound framework for analysis. These methodologies, distinct yet complementary, enable a deep exploration of the discursive formations and transformations of leadership concepts over time, revealing the underlying structures and shifts that characterize their development. Foucault’s approach to archaeology examines the historical conditions under which discourses are formed, providing insights into the epistemological layers that underpin leadership theories (Foucault, 1972). Genealogy, as a method, helps trace the emergence and transformation of these theories, emphasizing the role of power relations and historical contingencies in shaping them (Foucault, 1984).

This dual methodological approach is particularly suited for dissecting the complexities of leadership evolution from the strict, hierarchical models advocated by Lenin, influenced by the political turmoil and the need for effective revolutionary leadership, to more fluid and inclusive models that characterize contemporary theories on leadership (Antonakis & Day, 2020). By applying Foucault’s methodologies, one can examine how shifts in societal values, technological advancements, and changes in the global political economy have influenced large-scale leadership practices and theories over time (Hernandez, Long, & Sitkin, 2021; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).

Furthermore, Foucault’s frameworks allow for an interrogation of the socio-political underpinnings that guide the acceptance and rejection of various leadership styles, illustrating how leadership is not just about individual capability but is deeply embedded within power structures and cultural narratives (Alvesson & Spicer, 2021). This perspective encourages a reevaluation of leadership theories, suggesting that current models must be understood not only in terms of their practical utility but also through the ideological and historical contexts that give rise to them.

His concept of archaeology is also instrumental in dissecting the conditions that have allowed certain leadership theories to emerge and become institutionalized. This methodological approach delves into the historical discourses that shape, and are shaped by, the prevailing knowledge systems of specific periods. For example, applying an archaeological analysis to Lenin’s theories of leadership can involve examining the socio-political, ideological, and economic discourses of early 20th-century Russia. This analysis sheds light on why Lenin’s ideas about the vanguard leadership structure and transformative leadership resonated during that period. Lenin’s advocacy for a “vanguard” to lead the proletariat with a clear and theoretically informed strategy highlights the dynamics of revolutionary leadership in response to the socio-political conditions of early 20th-century Russia.

On the other hand, Foucault’s genealogy offers a dynamic view of the history of ideas, focusing on the power relations and struggles that influence the evolution of concepts over time. In the context of leadership theories, a genealogical approach traces the developments and changes that these theories have undergone through different historical epochs. It scrutinizes how and why certain leadership models, such as the authoritarian models hegemonic in Lenin’s time, gave way to more democratic and participative forms in later years. This approach not only highlights the shifts and breaks in theoretical paradigms but also examines the conditions under which these changes occurred, including global political shifts and technological advancements that have redefined leadership practices (Gordon, 1991; Foucault, 1984).

By synthesizing archaeology and genealogy, the research paints a comprehensive picture of the landscape of leadership theories. This dual approach facilitates a critical examination of both the static and dynamic aspects of leadership discourse. Archaeology offers a snapshot of the intellectual and cultural conditions at specific historical moments, providing clarity on the immediate contexts that gave rise to various leadership ideas. Genealogy, on the other hand, connects these moments, constructing a narrative of evolution and highlighting the series of changes that leadership theories have undergone in response to shifting power dynamics and broader societal transformations.

Moreover, this methodology proves particularly effective in understanding the current challenges and transformations in leadership practices prompted by the digital era and the transition to a multipolar global order. It enables an informed critique of traditional leadership paradigms and assesses their relevance in contemporary settings, potentially paving the way for the development of new theories that resonate with today’s global and digital realities (Crevani, 2019; Khurana, 2007).

However, employing such an in-depth historical and discursive analysis requires meticulous research that encompasses a wide range of primary and secondary sources. The study engages with theoretical texts, historical documents, and empirical research to construct a nuanced understanding of how leadership theories have evolved over time. This rigorous approach not only enriches the academic discourse on leadership but also provides practical insights for current and future leaders navigating the complexities of a rapidly changing world.

For instance, to thoroughly analyze the evolution of leadership theories from Lenin’s era to the contemporary period, it was imperative to access a selection of primary texts, historical documents, and contemporary accounts. These materials provided the necessary depth and breadth required to understand the shifts in leadership paradigms and the ideological and socio-political contexts that have influenced these changes.

Commencing with primary texts, Lenin’s seminal work “What Is to Be Done?” (1902) proves pivotal in comprehending his perspectives on the necessity of a theory-driven vanguard leadership structure, crucial for effecting societal transformations. This work complements the foundational principles elucidated in “The Communist Manifesto” by Marx and Engels (1948), which delineates the early theoretical frameworks of large-scale leadership that profoundly influenced Lenin. Furthermore, Burns’ seminal piece “Leadership” (1978) introduces the concept of transformational leadership, offering an alternative paradigm to counteract the "iron law of oligarchy" (Michels, 1915) and the inherent risks of authoritarianism prevalent during Lenin’s era.

However, while the approach of transformational leadership likely emphasizes moral elevation, charisma, and visionary leadership aimed at transforming followers, it is worth noting, as Uhl-Bien (2006) asserts, that its essence remains inherently "entity-centric"(leader-centric", oriented primarily towards the figure of the leader.

Contemporary accounts are equally vital for understanding current leadership dynamics. Sinek’s “Leaders Eat Last” (2014) exemplifies contemporary leadership philosophies that prioritize team cohesion and follower well-being, indicative of the shift towards empathetic and servant leadership models. Scholarly articles on digital leadership further explore the implications of digital technology on leadership practices, including the challenges of leading remotely and digital activism (Northouse, 2021; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014).

By examining this diverse range of sources, one grounded an analysis in both empirical and theoretical foundations, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the continuity and change in leadership across different epochs and socio-political contexts. This approach not only enriches the academic discourse on large-scale leadership but also offers practical insights for current and future leaders facing the complexities of an ever-changing multipolar landscape.

?

The landscape of large-scale leadership

?

The landscape of large-scale leadership has experienced profound transformations from the era of Lenin to the present day, paralleling the shifts in global political structures from a unipolar to a multipolar world. These changes reflect broader socio-economic trends and shifts in power dynamics that influence how leadership is studied and practiced across various contexts (Nye, 2021).

In the early 20th century, during Lenin’s time, leadership theories were heavily influenced by emerging social theories and the political circumstances of the period. Lenin himself was a product of and a contributor to the transformative ideas circulating during a time of intense socio-political upheaval. His work, particularly “What Is to Be Done?”, advocated for a vanguard leadership structure where a dedicated, informed elite would lead the masses who were seen as incapable of achieving transformative consciousness on their own. This notion of centralized, hierarchical leadership underpinned many movements of the era, reflecting the broader authoritarian tendencies prevalent in both communist and fascist states (Service, 2020).

As the 20th century progressed, the aftermath of World War II and the onset of the Cold War established a bipolar world dominated by two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, each leading a bloc with its own distinct ideological stance on governance and leadership. During this period, leadership theories began to diversify with the development of behavioral and contingency theories, which emphasized that effective leadership could vary depending on the situation and the behavior of the leader rather than a one-size-fits-all model. These theories expanded the scope of leadership styles beyond authoritarian models, introducing more democratic and participative leadership forms in political settings (Burns, 2020).

The latter part of the 20th century and the early 21st century saw the world transitioning from a bipolar system to a more multipolar world order, with the rise of new economic powers such as China, India, and the European Union. This shift has deeply influenced leadership theories, which now have to account for increased complexity in global interactions and the integration of diverse cultural perspectives. In today’s multipolar world, leadership is no longer about centralization of power but rather about navigating a range of stakeholders, each with their own interests and cultural backdrops (Zakaria, 2021).

At that time, leadership theories such as transformational and transactional leadership reflected this demand. Transformational leadership, in particular, emphasizes charisma, vision, and inspiration, resonating with a global environment that values innovation and adaptability. Leaders were expected to not only manage but also inspire and transform to meet global challenges and harness the opportunities of a rapidly changing world (Bass & Riggio, 2020).

Today, the rise of network theories of leadership and the increasing importance of digital platforms have transformed traditional notions of leadership. In a digitally connected world, leadership is increasingly seen as a distributed process, where influence is exercised across networks rather than through rigid hierarchies. This reflects the multipolar nature of global politics, where power is distributed across multiple centers rather than concentrated in a single entity (Ibarra & Hunter, 2020).

As a result, contemporary large-scale leadership is increasingly defined by its ability to navigate the complex interplay of digital transformation and shifting global dynamics. The emergence of digital activism, for instance, has brought new challenges to the fore, requiring leaders to manage a more engaged and vocal stakeholder environment. Social media and other digital platforms, by democratizing the dissemination of information, have significant. This shift not only challenges traditional paradigms of public administration but also demands proficiency in digital tools that support virtual collaboration. Effective large-scale leadership in this context hinges on the ability to create an inclusive environment that ensure that all feel connected and engaged.

Simultaneously, the global political landscape is experiencing significant shifts toward a multipolar world order, where power is no longer concentrated but distributed among various global powers. This new geopolitical reality compels large-scale leaders to be particularly sensitive to international relations and the global implications of their decisions. Navigating this multipolar world requires a sophisticated understanding of global system, the ability to engage with diverse ideological and cultural perspectives, and strategic foresight to anticipate and mitigate risks associated with global political and economic volatility

Amidst these operational and strategic challenges, there is also a growing demand for ethical leadership. Today’s large-scale leaders are expected to prioritize sustainability and social responsibility, balancing short-term demands with ethical and ideological considerations and the long-term impacts of their political activities. This involves making decisions that not only benefit interesting groups but also contribute positively to societal and environmental outcomes at a whole. Large-scale leaders are called upon to embody values that reflect a commitment to fairness, integrity, and respect for both people, their communities, and the planet.

In essence, the role of a large-scale leader today is more multifaceted than ever, requiring a blend of digital proficiency, global strategic thinking, and a strong ethical and ideological compass. The challenges of contemporary leadership demand that those in positions of power are not merely effective managers but also visionary thinkers capable of guiding their communities through periods of rapid change and uncertainty. Consequently, contemporary large-scale leaders must continually adapt, learn, and evolve to meet the needs of an increasingly complex, interconnected, and ideologically driven world (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2021).

?

Theory as the foundation of practice

?

In this rapidly evolving global landscape, our archaeogenealogy points out that the relevance of Lenin’s advocacy for a theoretical basis in large-scale leadership practices remains particularly profound. Lenin’s approach, which emphasized the importance of a well-grounded theoretical understanding to guide practical actions, provides critical insights into how contemporary large-scale leaders can navigate the complexities of a multipolar world and the digital era (Lenin, 1902).

He argues that effective large-scale leadership, particularly in times of significant social change, must be deeply informed by a coherent and comprehensive theoretical framework. This principle is essential today, as large-scale leaders face an increasingly interconnected and technologically driven world. The challenges of large-scale leadership now extend beyond traditional geopolitical dynamics to include digital influence, cultural integration, and the management of diverse, often virtual citizens. A theoretical foundation offers these large-scale leaders a lens through which to interpret complex phenomena and make informed decisions that are not only reactive but proactive and strategic (Castells, 2021).

For instance, the integration of digital technologies into everyday governance has introduced new dynamics of power and interaction that require a theoretical understanding of media communication, network theory, and information flow. Large-scale, leaders who are equipped with such theoretical insights are better prepared to leverage digital tools effectively, engage with stakeholders across various platforms, and navigate the challenges of cyber security and information integrity (Van Dijck, Poell & De Waal, 2021).

Furthermore, as the global order shifts away from unipolarity to a more multipolar configuration, the geopolitical and economic interactions become more complex. Here, Lenin’s emphasis on the importance of a theoretical grounding can guide large-scale leaders in developing strategies that consider not just economic factors but also cultural, political, and environmental dynamics. This theoretical approach enables a more holistic view of global challenges, such as geopolitical rearrangements, climate change, international trade, and global health crises, allowing for more effective and sustainable large-scale leadership strategies (Steffek, 2020).

Lenin’s advocacy for theoretical rigor also underscores the importance of ethical considerations in large-scale leadership. In a world where corporate and political scandals regularly undermine public trust, a strong theoretical basis helps large-scale leaders to navigate ethical dilemmas and make decisions that align with both short-term demands and broader social values. It encourages large-scale leaders to consider the long-term impacts of their decisions, fostering a large-scale leadership style that is responsible, transparent, and aligned with the principles of social justice and equity (Ciulla, 2020).

In advocating for a theoretical basis in large-scale leadership, Lenin (1902) provides a valuable lesson for contemporary large-scale leaders: that effective leadership is not merely about managing the status quo but about understanding and transforming it. By grounding their actions in a solid theoretical framework, large-scale leaders can ensure that their strategies are not only effective in achieving immediate goals but also sustainable and adaptable in facing future challenges. This approach is particularly pertinent in today’s world, where the pace of change is rapid, and the scope of leadership extends well beyond traditional boundaries (Khurana & Nohria, 2021).

?

What is to be done?

?

In “What Is to Be Done?”, Lenin (1902) addresses the complexities of political sensibility, the structure of transformative large-scale leadership, and the mechanisms for inciting socio-political change thought into a more actionable form. This work influenced a myriad of transformative movements globally. At the core of his brochure is Lenin’s critique of the existing Marxist approach to political activism, particularly his contention with the concept of “economism” (Cliff, 2002; Harding, 1983).

In Lenin’s critique, “economism” referred to a tendency within social movements to focus solely on economic struggles, such as better wages and working conditions, with the assumption that political consciousness and the impetus for overthrowing the social system would naturally evolve from these struggles. He argued against this notion, asserting that economic struggle alone was insufficient to bring about substantial change (Lenin, 1902).

According to him, without guidance from a more consciously political approach, social and political institutions would remain bogged down in mere punctual reforms, failing to connect these struggles to the broader contest against the structural factors of oppression and inequalities. To oppose this, Lenin (1902) proposed the creation of a “vanguard” leadership structure, composed of individuals deeply committed to the mass cause, equipped with a thorough understanding of political theory, and capable of elevating the citizens consciousness.

The role of this vanguard was crucial in Lenin’s eyes because it filled the gap between the mass’s immediate economic conditions and the broader political awareness necessary for effective transformation. The vanguard’s responsibility was to educate and support the citizens, steering them from localized struggles to the overarching goal of effective transformations.

Furthermore, he introduced the principle of “democratic vanguard”, which was a method to ensure rigorous internal debate and democracy that would transition to a unified front once decisions were made. This approach was essential for maintaining the unity of the vanguard, particularly in the diverse and expansive Russian Empire where the geographical and cultural heterogeneity could easily lead to fragmented movements (Lenin, 1902).

Introducing a broad critique of the society into a detailed strategy for organizing and directing a transformative movement, Lenin’s insistence on the necessity of a theoretically informed large-scale leadership to act as the catalyst for political and social upheaval underscores his belief in the need for proactive engagement rather than passive expectancy of the mass rising. This has rendered Lenin’s work a cornerstone of transformative thought, providing a significant approach for coupling theoretical rigor with practical action in the pursuit of profound societal change.

?

The digital world and new forms of "economism"?

?

In the contemporary context, large-scale leadership praxis has undergone significant evolution since Lenin’s era, transitioning toward new forms of charismatic authority that inspire and motivate followers to realize their individual interests, enterprises, and competencies. This transformation aims to make individuals competitive and attractive in the new societal context, requiring large-scale leaders to create and sustain environments conducive to effectively translating these competencies into performance and short-term results. Leaders are now tasked with not only guiding but also empowering their followers to adapt quickly and efficiently in a landscape that values agility and innovation (Bass & Riggio, 2020).

Dominant current leadership approaches, such as transformational leadership, focus on fostering a more participatory approach. These styles prioritize inspiring followers to exceed their expectations and engage proactively with their economic growth and personal ambitions to better match the evolving demands of today’s markets (Avolio & Bass, 2004). This approach not only aims to elevate individual economic performance but also seeks to align with the broader strategic goals of the financial world, ensuring that leadership practices are adaptable and responsive to the dynamic business environment.

Additionally, emerging leadership models emphasize horizontality, collaboration, adaptability, and flexibility, particularly vis-à-vis the entrepreneurship of self. These models advocate for concepts like relational, adaptive, distributed, and shared leadership, which are becoming crucial in today’s fast-paced, unpredictable world. Such leadership styles recognize the importance of connections and relationships, advocating for a decentralized approach where power and decision-making are spread across networks rather than held at the top (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007).

This dynamic environment necessitates that large-scale leaders pivot their strategies in response to changing external pressures and internal dynamics. As challenges and opportunities arise with increasing speed, the ability to adapt quickly and efficiently becomes a vital aspect of effective leadership. This requires a deep understanding of both the external market forces and the internal landscape of their citizens, enabling large-scale leaders to steer their communities through complexities with agility and informed decision-making (Hannah, Uhl-Bien, Avolio, & Cavarretta, 2009).

Furthermore, the discourse surrounding contemporary leadership often integrates principles of sustainability, ethical practices, and social responsibility alongside traditional objectives like corporate and financial profit maximization. This shift toward ethical pragmatism involves balancing a wide range of outcomes, including ideological considerations and long-term societal impacts. This reflects a broader understanding of the responsibilities inherent in large-scale leadership (Waldman & Siegel, 2008).

The digital era has also introduced new dimensions to large-scale leadership, requiring contemporary leaders to navigate the complexities of digital communication and influence stakeholders across virtual platforms. This aspect of digital leadership necessitates skills in leading through technology and engaging with a global audience" (Bennis & Biederman, 1997).

This panorama, typical of the corporate world, is increasingly transposed to public administration. Cities and countries are being treated as businesses; large-scale leaders must behave as businesspersons, oriented by the economy, striving to make their communities more attractive for investment and large events.

In this sense, although Lenin’s advocacy for an oligarchical form of leadership and activism - the "vanguard" leadership structure - could contrast starkly with the contemporary scenario, his works, influenced by authors from his time such as Michels’ "iron law of oligarchies" and the socio-psychological insights of Freud (1921) and Le Bon (1985), bring an important point to the analysis of the foundations of large-scale leadership in the contemporary context: do the ideological foundations that underpin contemporary practices surpass - or reinforce - the "economicist" perspective that Lenin (1902) vehemently critiqued? On the surface, it may appear that contemporary large-scale leadership practices, inspired by the dynamics of the corporate world, have transcended the economicist perspective.

Despite these developments, the question remains whether these changes are fundamentally ideological shifts or pragmatic responses to new economic realities. While contemporary leadership practices appear to reject the purely economicist approach by emphasizing values such as diversity, inclusion, and social responsibility, there is an argument to be made that these shifts are primarily economically motivated. In a global marketplace where citizens-consumers are increasingly aware and concerned about ethical and environmental issues, aligning with these values can be interpreted as a strategic maneuver to maintain relevance and competitiveness within the prevailing ‘capitalist discourse’ (Lacan, 1974).

Furthermore, the rise of social responsibility and sustainability narratives can sometimes be perceived as shallow or merely serving as part of a branding strategy rather than reflecting a genuine transformation in fundamental values. This implies that although modern leadership practices may appear to move beyond economicist viewpoints, they often end up reinforcing them, fueled by opportunism and the manipulation of the masses through the superficiality of social media. This focus frequently revolves around transient issues, rigid ideologies, and reactionary values, guided by a “vanguard” comprised of influential financiers and rentiers whose resources exceed the gross domestic products of many nations combined.

This critical view underscores the tension between the professed discourses and their actual practices, suggesting that the adoption of socially responsible and sustainable practices might often serve more to enhance the status quo than to effect real change. Such strategies are aligned with maintaining market position and appeasing stakeholder groups rather than with a profound commitment to the ethical principles these practices ostensibly represent.

Hence, while large-scale leadership in contemporary settings often showcases a commitment to progressive values, the underlying economic motivations and the strategic manipulation of public perceptions can sometimes suggest a continuation rather than a departure from just economic and short-term objectives. This reality calls for a more nuanced understanding of how large-scale leadership styles and practices are evolving in the face of global challenges and stakeholder expectations (Porter & Kramer, 2021).

?

Contemporary leadership dynamics in a multipolar world

?

The evolving demographics, geopolitical shifts, cultural changes, and behavioral adaptations necessitate a transformation in large-scale leadership practices. Today’s leaders are required to navigate a multipolar world, effectively leverage technology for communication and management, and integrate ethical practices into their leadership strategies. Unlike past models, such as Lenin’s vanguard concept, which were apt for their era, contemporary leadership demands a more collaborative, inclusive, adaptive, and distributed approach. Leaders must foster participatory environments where decision-making is decentralized, reflecting the democratic and interconnected nature of our digital age. This paradigm shift is vital for harnessing the collective strengths and diverse perspectives of global communities, particularly when engaging remote and culturally varied groups (Ancona & Bresman, 2021).

Additionally, the role of ideology in leadership continues to be significant. Today’s large-scale leaders must align their strategies with not only economic objectives but also ethical, political, and social responsibilities. This alignment is increasingly crucial in a society where awareness of social and environmental impacts is growing. Leaders are challenged to balance short-term demands with long-term sustainability initiatives, requiring a commitment to ethical practices that transcend mere compliance and strive for genuinely transformative actions.

While contemporary leadership appears to move beyond purely economic perspectives, there is skepticism regarding whether these changes are driven by genuine ethical commitments or merely by the need to maintain a competitiveness discourse.

The tension between professed values and actual practices underscores the complexity of contemporary large-scale leadership. While there is a recognition of progressive ideals, there is also an acknowledgment that economic motivations and strategic maneuvering take precedence, leading to a continuation of short-term objectives rather than a genuine commitment to long-term ethical principles.

This critical perspective emphasizes the necessity for a nuanced comprehension of contemporary large-scale leadership, recognizing both its progressive ambitions and its capacity to bolster prevailing power dynamics. It underscores the imperative for leaders on a grand scale to navigate the intricacies of stakeholder anticipations while remaining mindful of the broader societal ramifications of their decisions.

It is also critical to emphasize the importance of digital literacy in large-scale leadership. The digital era has fundamentally altered the mechanics of leadership, making it essential for leaders to proficiently use digital tools to navigate changes. This capability ensures that their initiatives can quickly and effectively respond to both opportunities and crises. Such leadership not only addresses immediate challenges but also solidifies the principles and theoretical foundations necessary for long-term strategic decision-making (Bennis & Biederman, 1997).

This contemporary approach requires leaders to not only react swiftly but also remain rooted in a sturdy strategic framework that advocates for sustainable and ethically sound practices over time. It suggests that leaders must genuinely lead by setting agendas, rather than merely reacting to them, and consistently refine their leadership methodologies with firm principles and theoretical insights. This helps them steer clear of the pitfalls of economically driven strategies and practices, ensuring that their leadership is both effective and principled (Khurana & Nohria, 2021).

?

Conclusion

?

One of the key takeaways from this archaeological analysis is the crucial role of integrating archaeological theoretical insights into contemporary leadership practices. These insights offer depth and perspective, allowing leaders to draw from a wealth of knowledge that informs and enhances their approach to present-day challenges. Recognizing archaeological perspectives is not just an academic exercise; it is a practical imperative for effective leadership in today’s world (Antonakis & Day, 2022).

Archaeological insights provide a fundamental comprehension of the principles and dynamics that have shaped leadership thought across centuries. These insights are not just relics of the past; they represent evolving ideas that have adjusted to diverse socio-economic and political contexts over time. Through the study of these theories, leaders can grasp the origins of contemporary practices and gain insight into why specific strategies thrived or faltered across various historical periods (Day & Antonakis, 2022). For example, delving into transformational leadership theories from the mid-20th century underscores the lasting significance of vision and charisma in leadership, traits that continue to be highly prized still today.

Furthermore, archaeological insights encourage leaders to critically assess the application of theories in varying contexts. This understanding aids in identifying conditions under which certain leadership styles are effective. For example, authoritarian leadership may have been suitable during crises or wars historically but might not fit the collaborative climate required in contemporary knowledge economies (Hickman, 2021).

Incorporating archaeological theories into current practices not only enhances leader adaptability but also acts as a guide, offering alternative viewpoints and strategies that might not be immediately apparent through contemporary theories alone (Khurana & Nohria, 2021).

Additionally, engaging with archaeological insights fosters a holistic understanding of leadership, merging theoretical depth with practical application. It encourages leaders to balance immediate effectiveness with sustainable long-term strategies, integrating ethical and ideological considerations historically argued, such as balancing short-term demands with long-term social responsibilities (Ciulla & Forsyth, 2021).

Reflecting on archaeological leadership theories can also inspire innovative leadership practices. By revisiting and reinterpreting these theories in light of current challenges, leaders can develop new models that blend historical wisdom with contemporary approaches, essential for addressing today’s dynamic societal needs (Mumford, 2021).

However, applying an archaeological framework to contemporary contexts presents numerous challenges and limitations that require careful and critical examination. Engaging with Lenin’s perspective on a vanguard leadership structure raises ethical and practical concerns in contemporary democratic societies that emphasize inclusivity and collaborative decision-making (Kellerman, 2021). Moreover, as economic considerations remain deeply intertwined with political strategies, contemporary leaders must navigate these complexities with a sophisticated approach that balances economic imperatives with ethical leadership and social responsibility (Wright & Nyberg, 2021).

As the world grows more multipolar, the demand for leaders who can navigate diverse cultural norms and drive incremental change increases. This scenario requires transformative leadership that transcends charisma, incorporating consistent principles, programs, long-term visioning, and robust theoretical frameworks (Nye, 2021).

Thus, there is an essential need for further research in large-scale leadership and theoretical praxis to adapt to the rapid changes and complexities of the modern world. This includes studying the impact of technological advancements on leadership, investigating strategies for integrating sustainability and ethical priorities into leadership practices, and developing frameworks for effective digital and global leadership. Such research will equip leaders with the necessary insights and tools to navigate the intricacies of the contemporary world, ensuring they remain adaptable, proactive, and ethically grounded (Schwab, 2022; Porter & Kramer, 2021).

References

?

Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2021). The stupidity paradox: The power and pitfalls of functional stupidity at work. Sage.

Ancona, D., & Bresman, H. (2021). X-teams: How to build teams that lead, innovate, and succeed. Harvard Business Review Press.

Antonakis, J., & Day, D. V. (Eds.). (2022). The nature of leadership. Sage Publications.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Mind Garden.

Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., & Dodge, G. E. (2001). E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 615-668.

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2022). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2020). Transformational leadership. Psychology Press.

Bennett, N., & Olney, R. (2020). Leadership in the era of economic uncertainty: Managing in a downturn. McGraw-Hill Education.

Bennis, W., & Biederman, P. W. (1997). Organizing genius: The secrets of creative collaboration. Addison-Wesley.

Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. (2021). Social network analysis: Theory and applications. Cambridge University Press.

Burns, J. M. (2020). Leadership. Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

Carlyle, T. (1840). On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic in history. Chapman and Hall.

Castells, M. (2021). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet Age. Polity Press.

Ciulla, J. B. (2020). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Praeger.

Ciulla, J. B., & Forsyth, D. R. (2021). Leadership ethics: Bridging theory and practice. Springer.

Cliff, T. (2002). Lenin: Building the party. Bookmarks Publications.

Crevani, L. (2019). Is there leadership in a fluid world? Exploring the ongoing production of direction in organizing. Leadership, 15(1), 135-156.

Cunha, M. P., Rego, A., & Vaccaro, A. (2021). Foundations of management. Springer.

Day, D. V., & Antonakis, J. (Eds.). (2022). The nature of leadership. Sage Publications.

Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.

Fitzgerald, L., & MacCormack, A. (2021). Business and management practices in the age of disruption. Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1984). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 76-100). Pantheon Books.

Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental rationality: An introduction. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 1-51). University of Chicago Press.

Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B. J., & Cavarretta, F. L. (2009). A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts. Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 897-919.

Harding, N. (1983). Lenin’s political thought: Theory and practice in the democratic and socialist revolutions. Macmillan.

Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2021). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Review Press.

Hernandez, M., Long, C. P., & Sitkin, S. B. (2021). The ethical challenges of leadership. Sage Publications.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Prentice Hall.

Hickman, G. R. (2021). Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era. Sage Publications.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications.

Ibarra, H., & Hunter, M. (2020). How leaders create and use networks. Harvard Business Review, 88(1/2), 40-47.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2020). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (10th Anniversary ed.). Emerald Group Publishing.

Kellerman, B. (2021). Leadership: Essential selections on power, authority, and influence. McGraw-Hill Education.

Khurana, R., & Nohria, N. (2021). Handbook of leadership theory and practice. Harvard Business Press.

Koonce, R. (Ed.). (2022). Leading effectively in a volatile world: Are leaders ready for the challenge? Routledge.

Lacan, J. (1974). Télévision. Seuil.

Lenin, V. I. (1902). What is to be done? Burning questions of our movement. Foreign Languages Press.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 271-299.

Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56(4), 241-270.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). Manifesto of the Communist Party. Penguin Classics.

Mendenhall, M. E., Osland, J. S., Bird, A., Oddou, G. R., & Maznevski, M. L. (2022). Global leadership: Research, practice, and development. Routledge.

Michels, R. (1915). Political parties: A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. Hearst’s International Library Co.

Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2020). Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organisations: The application of complexity theory to organisations. Elsevier Science.

Mumford, M. D. (Ed.). (2021). Handbook of leadership development. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

Nye, J. S. (2021). Do morals matter? Presidents and foreign policy from FDR to Trump. Oxford University Press.

Osland, J. S., Li, M., & Wang, Y. (2006). Advances in global leadership (Vol. 4). Emerald Group Publishing.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2021). Creating shared value: Redefining capitalism and the role of the corporation in society. Harvard Business Review Press.

Schwab, K. (2022). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Crown Publishing Group.

Service, R. (2020). Lenin: A biography. Pan Books.

Steffek, J. (2020). Transnational administration and global governance. Routledge.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35-71.

Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2020). Examining the impact of culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(5), 542-558.

Tegarden, D. P., Tegarden, L. F., & Sheetz, S. D. (2022). Business simulations and cognitive learning: Developments in business education and training. IGI Global.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Complexity leadership: Nursing’s role in health care delivery (2nd ed.). F.A. Davis Company.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2021). Complexity leadership: Shaping the future through adaptive disruption and change. Information Age Publishing.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318.

Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & De Waal, M. (2021). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.

Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. (2008). Defining the socially responsible leader. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 117-131.

Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2021). Climate change, capitalism, and corporations: Processes of creative self-destruction. Cambridge University Press.

Zakaria, F. (2021). Ten lessons for a post-pandemic world. W. W. Norton & Company.

?

?[1] Professor at FGV-EAESP. Researcher at NEOP FGV-EAESP. MED-AoM Ambassador. Postdoctoral Researcher in Psychoanalytic Theory. Doctor in Business Administration and Doctor in Architecture and Urbanism. https://pesquisa-eaesp.fgv.br/professor/anderson-de-souza-santanna .

This paper was developed within the framework of the Leadership Observatory NEOP FGV-EAESP. This research is supported by the S?o Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).

Sant'Anna, A. S. (2024). Contemporary Large-scale Leadership: What Is to Be Done? Manuscript Discussion Series, 2(8):1-25. NEOP FGV-EAESP. (Work in progress).