Chapter Twelve

This set of extracts from The Evolving Role of Executive Leadership is dedicated to Warren Bennis, the father of modern leadership as we know it. The book is a compendium of research results, key findings, and recommendations and is designed to help leaders understand current issues and envision future challenges, making them better prepared to lead their organizations. Bennis was a primary motivating force in the development of this work, which was produced by the Accenture Institute for Strategic Change, a pragmatic “think-and-act tank” that has conducted extensive research on the key issues of executive leadership and their evolution since its inception in January 1997. We are grateful to Bennis for his leadership, dedication, and insight, which have culminated in this and over fifty articles worldwide on the subject of the future global leader based on this research. Here we address three key topics for the future of leadership:

• Shared leadership and the devolving CEO
• Leading across generations
• Global leadership—the next generation

Shared Leadership and the Devolving CEO

Shared leadership is currently the subject of some debate. How practical and effective is the collaborative leadership model? Few answers have emerged, and the global markets have provided vivid examples of both success and failure, with a few whose fate has yet to be determined.

Research findings, however, suggest that this will be the leadership model of the future. The model appears to respond best to the needs of organizations that have undergone mergers, acquisitions, or joint ventures that have simply grown to great size and complexity.

What Is Shared Leadership?

Shared leadership, at the highest level, means splitting the responsibilities of the CEO between two or more individuals. In the broader sense, it means empowering individuals at all levels and giving them the opportunity to take the lead. It is becoming more common as the old top-down management structure gives way to flatter, more decentralized forms, and is seen by some experts as a way of promoting agility, proactivity, and autonomy: “Shared leadership fosters an environment that responds in agile ways to newness. It promotes a greater degree of creative and rational thought at the levels where it is needed. It enables all individuals in the organization to test their own assumptions and those of others rather than waiting for the ideas and decisions to be handed down through the hierarchy. True shared leadership can happen anywhere in an organization” (Deiss and Soete, 1997).

In consequence, leadership expectations for any employee in a company that has adopted shared leadership have increased significantly. At a minimum, staff are expected to be their own leaders, but at some point, most are also expected to lead formal or informal teams.

Drivers of Shared Leadership

Numerous factors contribute to the adoption of shared leadership models. The most common in recent years has been the increasing, if not overwhelming, number of mergers and acquisitions. Naturally, as two or more companies unite, their executive managers must integrate (or leave), and the new board of directors determines who will lead the new company. In some recent cases, the leadership is shared between two (or more) people.

A second factor is the growing number of partnerships and alliances where executives work jointly on specific projects or assignments. Basic to their success is the ability of all to work effectively together, the leaders in particular. Often, new leadership teams are created, with representation from each of the partners in the alliance, requiring several leaders to work together effectively in a broad coalition.

Rapidly flattening, often team-based structures are a third reason for shared leadership. Flatter organizations mean sharing responsibility and accountability at all levels of the company, so that power, authority, and decision making are more dispersed, both laterally and vertically.

A fourth factor is market convergence. As markets become more complex and interrelated, the demands on leadership increase until the job is simply too large for one individual, and global alignment of strategy and performance are likely to suffer. The many competencies required for such global leadership are unlikely all to be found in one individual.

Warren Bennis finds that many CEOs see their central task as developing other leaders and actively helping followers reach their own leadership potential (Bennis and Goldsmith, 1997). Thus future leaders may move away from singular roles to shared leadership networks that may themselves alter the foundations of the organization.

Examples of Shared Leadership

Long-Term Dual Philosophy

Unilever, an Anglo-Dutch consumer goods corporation that derives some $50 billion global sales from more than a thousand separate brands, is evidence that dual leaders are feasible, providing they have the same corporate philosophy. The group has worked with a shared leadership management structure ever since 1929, when the Dutch Margarine Union merged with the British Lever Bros. Both the Dutch and British shareholdings were retained and two co-chairmen were appointed to head the group. Along with the next chairman-elect, they formed a triumvirate that operated through a complex matrix of product coordinators and national heads.

In a move to improve the quality and clarity of strategy formulation, the triumvirate was replaced as part of a major restructuring in 1996. The financial structure, divided into Unilever plc and Unilever NV, was retained, and with it the two chairmen, who preside over the business of the Unilever group as the principal executive officers. But overall strategy was put in the hands of a seven-strong executive committee, and presidents were appointed to head the fourteen (now twelve) geographically based business groups, with full responsibility for operations and profits. Chairmen, executive committee, and presidents form the Unilever Executive Council.

There is now a much clearer distinction between group strategy and business operations, but Unilever has also designed the new structure to balance both global and local imperatives. It aims to make the most of its extensive knowledge of consumers in the 158 countries in which it operates, as well as optimizing the manufacturing facilities in 88 countries.

The executive committee, the top decision-making body, is therefore responsible for the following:

• Agreeing on priorities and allocating resources within the company
• Setting overall corporate targets
• Agreeing to and monitoring business group strategies and plans
• Identifying and exploiting opportunities created by Unilever's scale and scope
• Managing relations with the external world
• Developing future leaders

Business group presidents are responsible for operating their business in the most effective way. These are the key elements of their role:

• Taking full profit responsibility for their group
• Feeding their understanding of local market needs into group deliberations about future corporate strategy and the allocation of resources
• Executing corporate strategy

The new Unilever structure thus exhibits both forms of dual leadership: split chairmanship supported by an executive committee. The group's size and breadth of focus require a broad base of senior management expertise and experience. For companies that are merging with or acquiring others, it is essential to develop a strategy for a leadership team or teams that can be incorporated into the wider M&A plan.

Co-Chief Executive Officers

Shared leadership in its wider sense is a relatively new phenomenon, although splitting the powers and responsibilities of the chief executive between two exceptional leaders has a long history. A current example in which the role of chairman and chief executive is divided is provided by Citigroup, formed out of an equal merger between the U.S. bank Citicorp and the Travelers financial services group. Sharing the top roles are John S. Reed of Citicorp and Sanford I. Weill of Travelers. They have highly respected records in their own areas, which are seen as critical to the ultimate benefit to customers and shareholders. Observers question whether two such disparate cultures can be merged, and there have already been casualties, but the two leaders say their union is a marriage in which divorce is not an option.

Shared leadership may also be used as a change vehicle with no intention of maintaining it as a permanent structure. The U.S. long-distance telecommunications group GTE Corporation recently merged with the regional operator Bell Atlantic to create a wireless communications company. Charles R. Lee (CEO of GTE) and Ivan G. Seidenberg (CEO of Bell Atlantic) hold the co-CEO title and share leadership of the newly merged company. Lee is chairman, with Seidenberg as president. Lee brings chief operating officer, finance, and planning skills to the team, while Seidenberg's record features outstanding earnings performance and a turnaround in service delivery. He also has good experience in mergers, regulatory reform, and union negotiation. Useful as Lee's skills are in the short run, it should be noted that a natural succession back to single leadership has been planned. In 2002, Seidenberg will become the sole CEO, with Lee continuing as chairman until 2004, when Seidenberg will succeed him.

Whether shared leadership is a permanent phenomenon remains to be seen. It does not suit every situation. Monsanto and American Home Products intended to become a smoothly integrated model of co-leadership. The combined companies' board of directors was planned to have equal representation, and Robert B. Shapiro and John R. Stafford were to be co-chairmen and co-CEOs. In the end, however, the deal fell before what a statement described as “clashes of corporate cultures and CEOs' egos.” As one analyst noted in the Boston Globe (“The Region,” 1998), “It's OK if you want to have co-managers, but you can have only one philosophy and you can have only one leader.”

Executive Teams

Another form of shared leadership is the executive team. The increased size and breadth of focus of merged companies demand a broader base of senior management expertise and experience. Such companies therefore need a strategy for a leadership team or teams that can be incorporated into the wider merger and acquisition plan.

In the United States, NationsBank and Bank of America opted to apply this form of shared leadership when they merged in 1998. The top team was a combination of Hugh L. McColl Jr., CEO of NationsBank, who was made chairman and CEO of Bank of America; David Coulter, former chairman and CEO of Bank of America, who was appointed the new president of Bank of America; and James H. Hance, who became the new vice chairman and chief financial officer. Thus three leaders would fill different roles and provide different experience and expertise within the new executive team, sharing a job that was regarded as too big for one individual.

Once again, however, events interfered with an intriguing experiment. Coulter resigned barely a month after the two firms joined, raising the question of how shared leadership withstands adverse market conditions—in this case, a 78 percent drop in Bank of America's net income for the previous quarter. Perhaps the new team did not have enough time to develop shared responsibility.

Strong executive teams that share leadership are not always the product of a merger. In other cases, they are put in place to maximize the best talent and capability for the firm. Global perception management firm Burson-Marsteller provides an example. The team includes Graham Phillips, chairman; Chris Komisarjevsky, CEO; Don Cogman, president and COO; and Kurt Krauss, CFO. Extremely well-managed companies such as this have figured out how to share leadership, and they have done it for a long time. The executive team is well aligned, and generally the totality of leadership is shared with specific roles performed very effectively by the various team members.

Another example is SuperStock, a U.S. company that represents hundreds of photographers, artists, archives, museums, and special collections. In addition to co-presidents, this organization has an extensive leadership team.

Partnership

In strategic partnerships and alliances, some form of shared leadership is unavoidable. Either the separate leadership teams must come together to find a cohesive structure for their business practices, or a new leadership team, perhaps with equal representation, has to be created. Where there are several participants in a partnership or alliance, demands for shared leadership can increase sharply. Many alliances now include twenty or more partners, and the leadership demands become very complex.

Bechtel, the San Francisco–based engineering, construction, and management firm, shares leadership with its partner Intergraph Corporation, which supplies software, hardware, and technical assistance for its global engineering and construction projects. Similarly, Accenture relies on its partner Kenan Communications for state-of-the-art billing and customer care solutions used by communications providers worldwide. Accenture personnel are trained in the Kenan suite of solutions, and both partners assign staff to work together on client projects. As the number of alliances and partnerships between suppliers and customers grows, this form of shared leadership can be expected to expand.

Yet other examples can be found in proliferating alliances that include the outsourcing of major corporate functions to multiple partners.

Pru-Tech, an information technology subsidiary of Prudential Assurance, has an alliance with Accenture, to which each contributes leadership and core competencies. A team of Prudential and Accenture executives was formed to design and implement information technology and related change initiatives that directly support Prudential Assurance's strategic business objectives. Their goal is to provide more responsive, personalized products and services to customers through the customers' preferred access routes.

Research Support

Demands for shared leadership will continue to increase in the future. Accenture's Global Leader of the Future Profile indicates that dimensions such as develops and empowers people, builds teamwork and partnerships, and shares leadership increase significantly in importance for future leadership. The knowledge-based organization demands leaders who are ready for the participation of their workers in decision making. Qualitative data from research participants indicate that most are already involved in some form of shared leadership; they expect to see more shared executive leadership situations ahead.

Peter Drucker has noted that knowledge workers are people who know more about what they are doing than their managers do. In dealing with knowledge workers, old models of leadership will not work. Telling people what to do and how to do it becomes outmoded. The leader will instead be a guide, asking for input and sharing information. Knowledge workers of the future may well be difficult to keep. They will probably have little organizational loyalty and view themselves as professional free agents who will work for the leader who provides the most challenge and opportunity. Skill in hiring and retaining key talent will be a valuable commodity for the leader of the future. Sharing leadership may be one way to help demonstrate this skill.

Leading Across Generations

A growing problem facing some companies is the divisions in the workforce between different generations. In the modern high-tech, knowledge-based organization, where innovation and flexibility are vital, there is often a youth culture that leaves older staff out in the cold. But any organization that is not tolerant of the different generations making up its workforce is likely to suffer through high staff turnover and suboptimal performance.

In the United States, two generations in particular seem prone to conflict. These are known as the “baby boomers,” who were born between the end of the Second World War and the mid-1960s, and a younger generation, the “Generation Xers,” born after that time. All workforces are (or probably should be) multigenerational, but there is some evidence of a significant difference in assumptions, attitudes, and expectations of the younger Generation Xers. In the complex modern business organization, the older generation may have increasing difficulties leading the younger with its differing values and workstyle. But more obviously, the younger generation, thrust by technology into an increasing number of lead positions, may find difficulty winning the confidence of older subordinates.

Generational Values and Corporate Culture

Traditionally, organizations have developed a strong culture based on the values of loyalty, fortitude, and corporate paternalism—generally embodied and practiced by baby boomers. But this classic culture does not appear to resonate as well with the Generation Xers. Problems arise when corporations expect their younger employees to live, work, and lead like their boomer predecessors. A senior executive at the San Francisco Forum, commenting on the need to transform the organization, explained, “Corporate cultures must become adaptive or people will leave. Young professionals today have many more options than ever before. They no longer have to bow down to the ‘corporate god.’”

Companies realize that they must adapt their culture to attract and retain the best of both generations, but do not know how to initiate this change. Developing an effective multigenerational corporation requires understanding and respecting the different values and motivation of the workforce.

The Generation Xer: Educated, Driven, and Self-Aware

Because they grew up in a different social and economic environment than the older generation did, Generation Xers have developed a different value set and workstyle. Thomas Malone, professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management, has found that this group grew up with more affluence and more education than earlier generations; they are searching for responsibility and excitement based on challenge. A 1997 study by Office Team, a staffing service organization based in Menlo Park, California, suggested that Generation Xers were not seeking the corporate paternalism of their parents' era, but looked for a working environment that recognized quality-of-life needs and encouraged and rewarded creativity.

A Generation Xer in one of the study's focus groups, typifying the ideals of the twenty-something workforce, asked, “Why should I have to learn a specific [corporate] language to get to the executive level? If organizational change doesn't happen, I sure as hell won't work for corporate America.” The tentative conclusion is that the corporate culture and values previously revered will not satisfy the needs of the younger generation.

Searching for a potentially more rewarding and challenging career than can be offered by large companies, many Generation Xers have expressed their entrepreneurial spirit by starting their own businesses. Having witnessed their parents endure layoffs, mergers, buyouts, and general uncertainty, Generation Xers are driven to develop the self rather than to proclaim loyalty to the corporation. Emphasizing the shift, a participant in San Francisco said, “Now people will only do things for themselves or for other people they value, not for the organization.” In the Czech Republic, the younger participants echoed this point, expressing their desire for more individual expression, accountability, reward, and opportunity.

Younger generations always strive to develop their own identities and to make their mark. American Generation Xers seem to be more ready than their parents were to move from firm to firm to develop their specific skills, and in Silicon Valley or Wall Street, for example, many will take new jobs literally across the street to achieve greater responsibility, recognition, and reward. Whether they are forming their own businesses, working for start-ups, or contributing to Fortune 500 companies, these people seem to be searching for experiences that stimulate their interest and recognize their contributions. They put a high value on training, challenging roles, and constant feedback.

The Baby Boomer: Experienced, Loyal, and Directed

The values of loyalty, patience, stability, and judgment are strongly held by the baby boom generation. It formed these ideals while being promoted in older corporate cultures. Fitting the organization's image was highly regarded and rewarded in most organizations. Being a company player was an ideal for many in this generation. Some boomers in the focus groups stated that they placed more emphasis on the success of the corporation than on their own personal development. Self-awareness and personal mastery have not always been highly valued by this generation, but it is now indicating a need and desire to develop these competencies.

Baby boomers have thrived in a business environment that provides direction and fosters broad skill building. Whereas Generation Xers tend to move from employer to employer to develop a specific set of skills, many boomers have been at one firm long enough to develop a wide range of skills and organizational knowledge. It is not uncommon for a boomer to have shifted from research and development to sales, then to finance, before eventually moving into a leadership position. Experience in different areas within the organization provides insight and skills beneficial in analyzing results and strategic planning. Boomers have learned how to monitor the company's progress to predict outcomes and manage the workforce.

In addition to developing deep business knowledge, boomers' years of experience have taught them to place a high value on building relationships on which they rely for guidance and ideas. These relationships are generally formed with other boomers and are founded on honesty and trust. However, as some organizations have discovered through often-ineffective mentoring programs, boomers rarely develop strong relationships with younger generations.

Misperception of Values Leads to Conflict

Generation Xers have succeeded in casting off the label of slackers. However, they are now viewed by boomers as a workforce of educated, driven self-starters who also exhibit impatient, disloyal, and self-centered behavior. Rather than being lauded for their strong understanding of personal and career needs, Generation Xers are criticized for moving from employer to employer as they develop their skills and résumés. But they are not inherently disloyal and impatient: they are searching for an environment that provides development and recognition, while promoting a balance of personal and career needs.

The difficulty in leading a multigenerational workforce is not purely an older generation's misunderstanding of a younger one's values. The skills and ideals of the baby boom generation are not being recognized by younger employees. Boomers have a wealth of knowledge gained through both work and life experience. Unlike some of their younger counterparts, boomers have lived through recessions and have worked in a struggling economy. Many have stayed with one firm long enough to witness the consequences of their business decisions. While the baby boom generation values the skills and relationships gained through experience, Generation Xers tend to undervalue them. They often misperceive boomers as being stifling, unenergetic, and resistant to creativity.

The expanding markets in Central and Eastern Europe provide an extreme example of the differing values and attitudes of the younger and older generations. Following the collapse of Communism, a large number of younger leaders come to the fore—leaders who, educated under a totalitarian regime, are now developing their own individualism, particularly in the areas of accountability, responsibility, and reward. Participants in the Prague focus group indicated that Czech employers hesitate to hire anyone over thirty.

One message came through clearly across all geographic regions: it will be important for both older and younger generations to understand one another's distinct values and harness these differences for success. The challenge facing the organization of the future will be to capitalize on the entrepreneurial spirit of its younger leaders and the insight of its experienced executives.

Generation Xers as Leaders

Although multigenerational conflict affects many organizations, the high-tech, electronics, and software industries have felt the impact most strongly. This tension results from having a large number of skilled Generation Xers in leadership roles, coupled with the lack of understanding and trust between the generations. Due to the need for rapid product innovation and development in high-tech industries, many leaders are appointed for their technical knowledge and creativity, rather than their experience and business acumen. Often the employees with the greatest technical expertise, the knowledge workers, are the skilled Generation Xers rapidly moving up the organization.

Bruce Tulgan, founder of RainmakerThinking Inc. (a New Haven, Connecticut–based research and consulting firm that explores the role of Generation Xers in the corporation), stated, “more and more twentysomethings are being put into management and leadership roles. As a result of these young leaders, many of the old-fashioned work rules are being pushed aside” (Lewis, 1998). This shift may result in increased support for innovation and creativity, but it often leads to organizational problems. Leadership is difficult regardless of age and experience, and Generation Xers face an uphill battle.

While highly competent technically, they often lack the presence and strategic decision-making skills needed to be effective in the executive suite. Many of these young leaders have not accumulated the experience, knowledge, and professional relationships that contribute to making sound decisions. Bob Hunter, an Accenture managing partner, stated, “Today, because of the extra weight of technology, [young workers] jump into the role [of leader] without the full set of competencies” (Joyce, 1998). It is important that Generation Xers have a chance to develop that full set before they try to lead others.

Some Generation Xers do posses the competencies and vision to be effective in leading a multigenerational workforce, but their age and lack of experience leads others to assume they are also unskilled and ineffective. Many boomers feel threatened by the rise of the younger technical specialists, believing that their experience and business knowledge have been devalued. In their resentment, these boomers may fail to support the young executives. Such a mutual lack of support and understanding can lead to distrust and increased tensions between the boomer workforce and the Generation X executives.

Guidelines for Leading a Multigenerational Corporation

Although the strengths and potential limitations of each generation can be identified easily enough, the challenge is in successfully integrating the positive characteristics of each group. Clearly there is no single model for success. As a young participant in Prague said, “There should not be any models. Organizations need to focus on people's individuality and strength, which cater to new ideas and innovative thinking.” Successfully leading a multigenerational corporation will come from the understanding of difference, tolerance of ideas, and the sharing of knowledge.

Although conflict between the values of the baby boomer generation and those of Generation X may seem natural, it is the synergy of these two work groups that will provide the most successful leadership in the future. To develop this synergy, corporations need to develop an understanding and open culture that supports individuality and provides guidance to employees. The resulting strong corporate culture will develop from the bottom up, not from the top down.

The support of a group of diverse people is best achieved by providing them with representation in the decision-making process. A multigenerational leadership team provides a voice for the concerns of both the boomers and Generation Xers, who can then be more effective in developing a vision for the company that is shared by all. By bringing together both cohorts in the leadership roles, companies can expand the competency set of the executive suite. Differing values and experiences can often lead to conflict, of course, but the “constructive abrasion” of the diverse styles also is likely to lead to new forms of value creation.

Leaders are becoming younger. While most twenty-something professionals have the technical skills and creativity to drive the organization into the future, many do not have the business skills and experience necessary to provide direction and guidance to others. Mentors not only transfer basic business skills and knowledge but guide young employees in developing their individual leadership characteristics. Leadership is not a competency that can be effectively taught in the classroom; it is best developed through experience and observation.

It is obvious how mentoring benefits Generation Xers, but baby boomers also gain from this experience. Younger employees can transfer technical knowledge and act as a sounding board for new ideas. The greatest benefit of interaction between the two groups is the development of cross-generational relationships built on trust and respect.

Companies gain when they develop an environment in which employees feel that their contributions are rewarded and their concerns are noticed. This can be accomplished by promoting the formation of smaller communities within the organization. Communities can be formed around project teams, common interests, and skills. Smaller groups can provide their members with performance feedback and direction much more accurately than the larger corporation is able to do. The smaller groups' setting makes it easier for employees to maintain their individuality. Rewarding communities for their results allows the employees' entrepreneurial spirits to thrive. Employees are more readily going to take ownership in a work group where they can see the results of their actions. A community structure helps employees develop personal pride in their work and loyalty to the organization.

Global Leadership: The Next Generation

In partnership with the Accenture Institute for Strategic Change, Keilty, Goldsmith and Company (KGC) investigated the attitudes and opinions of the next generation of U.S. leaders. A student at the University of Pennsylvania, Lauren Wagner, was commissioned by KGC to interview a hundred student leaders on the top undergraduate business programs across the United States (as determined by US News & World Report, September 18, 1997).

This research was designed to obtain the views of the under-twenty generation on the characteristics they think will be important for the leader of a more global organization in the next millennium. These young leaders provided their opinions on the changing business environment and how successful leaders in the future will adapt. By tapping into the beliefs and values of the next wave of young professionals, present leaders will, presumably, be better prepared to meet the leadership challenges of the next few decades.

Although the beliefs and values of this group of students are similar to the young executive profile, their responses lacked the cynicism and determined individualism expressed by the Generation Xers currently facing the challenges of the corporate world. The under-twenty group perceives organizational change as inevitable, and is less concerned or possibly less aware of the conflict that will accompany such change. In contrast, the corporate image portrayed by the working Generation Xers was one of change, but also one of conflict and uncertainty. The findings from the undergraduate interviews underline the need for organizations to develop and promote a common set of corporate values.

Analysis of the responses revealed certain key themes that send a strong message about the future of the business environment and its leaders. The undergraduates identified behavior that successful leaders must develop in the expanding global workplace:

• Communicate a global vision.
• Be technologically savvy.
• Embrace an open-minded leadership style.
• Champion diversity (style, culture, and leadership).
• Display flexibility and respect toward employees.
• Foster a corporate culture of teamwork.

Global Vision and Communication

The next generation recognizes that the increasing convergence of business across industries, regions, and competencies will continue to push organizations' vision and scope beyond national borders. They understand and expect a global leader of the future to pursue opportunities throughout the world; virtually all reaches of the globe are fair prospects to compete in the fierce business environment of the future. The students understood that it was not enough to have a global vision. A leader must also have the ability to communicate the company's position in the global marketplace, and to communicate the vision to all levels of the organization to gain the support of all employees.

Technology

The power of technology to transform the work environment they will join is not lost on the interviewees. Advances in information technology and the introduction of the virtual marketplace are radically altering the way business is done. It is up to the leader of the future to be technologically savvy and use the technological resources necessary to make the company more efficient and competitive. To pass on the global vision that is so important, leaders must use technology to improve the quality and expedite the flow of communication.

Open-Mindedness

Due to the rapid pace of organizational change, the number one characteristic identified by students for “the global leader of the future” is open-mindedness. Participants believe that a leader who embraces the status quo will be easily defeated by a competitor who is willing to try new ideas, seek out new opportunities, and change as needed—both within the corporation and the industry. Innovation is key to the continued success of an organization, and using this key depends on having a leader with an open mind.

Diversity

Open-mindedness is not only beneficial in embracing innovative ideas or new technology, it is also essential when recruiting, managing, and leading a global, multigenerational workforce. It is the responsibility of a leader to be open to all kinds of people and recognize the opportunities and different perspectives that diversity brings to an organization without regard to gender, race, or religion. This person should be intolerant of sexual and racial discrimination and harassment and should also promote people fairly. Participants noted that cultural diversity training and international experience will be an integral part of the leadership development process. Students believed that all leaders should have some sort of international experience, whether that means traveling abroad or working overseas.

Flexibility and Respect

Recruiting and retaining good people will in part depend on leaders' respecting employees and being sensitive to their needs. Participants considered that leaders now more than ever need to respect the people that work with them. Talent is becoming a scarce resource, and in competitive labor markets, firms need to find ways to keep the talent they already have.

Today's student leaders predict a need for extraordinarily flexible leaders to transform today's organizations. The key to this new work environment is freedom and trust. Employers will expect more from their workers, but in return will be more responsible to their employees. Interestingly, student leaders expect a form of flexi-time to be offered, where the hours will be set depending on when individuals work their best, and to be able to work in any environment they feel comfortable, including telecommuting. This flexible culture is perceived to be possible in an organization where the leader respects different work styles and values. Relaxed dress codes, day-care services, and a family-friendly environment are just a few of the many changes that this generation expects to see in the organization of the future. This generation of workers will value mutual respect between employer and employee and greater individual freedom within a productive, flexible work environment led by personable, respectful, and tolerant leaders—real or virtual.

Corporate Culture of Teamwork

Along with the flexible work environment, future workers look forward to a changing corporate culture that values teamwork highly, in an environment that is more relaxed and places less emphasis on formal titles. The leader of the organization can create an atmosphere that encourages teamwork, where employees benefit from the success of the group and not from personal maneuvers at each other's expense. However, teamwork will prove to be more difficult to achieve as flexi-time and a virtual organization become the norm. Although members of this generation value a more relaxed, collective, and collaborative culture, they are aware of some of the inherent challenges that it will pose for leaders.

Charisma

Charisma is one characteristic that, the younger generation believes, will always be vital to successful leadership. Executives may have all the necessary technical and industry knowledge, but they will not be effective if they cannot motivate and empower those who are subordinate to them. A leader must be charismatic so that others will follow without feeling that they are being “bossed around.” Charisma is a key component of gaining the respect of employees and leading the workforce through influence, rather than through formal authority. As the command-and-control model of power loses the respect and loyalty of the younger workforce, the need for charismatic leaders is increasing.

Ethics

Young leaders place great value on ethics. Ethical behavior was identified as a key characteristic of the leader of the future and was thought to be sorely lacking in current leaders. Some felt that ethics would become the most important characteristic of future leaders. Executives must lead through example and establish the ethical standards for the company. An optimistic group, 50 percent of those interviewed, thought that ethical standards of companies would rise in the future, 22 percent thought they would fall, and 28 percent thought they would stay the same or were undecided.

Summary

With the aid of Warren's personal leadership and dedication to elevating future insights on the topic of leadership, we have been successful in developing this perspective. We hope you agree that the next generation of leaders faces unprecedented global change. However, we hope you also agree that armed with this knowledge they can face those challenges with practical and effective models based on broad leadership experience coupled with a global picture of future leadership needs.