ABSTRACT
After three chapters, is it time to do an interim stock take? So far we have seen that the ideas that emerged on leadership in the business sector in the 1980s and early 1990s included ideas about the potency of charismatic, visionary and transformational leaders (who could be morally uplifting for their followers). These were all models of heroic leadership. Side by side with this, in the same years, therewere also ideas that leadership in company headquarters could not be trusted to know enough to set long-term directions and strategies for companies because the pace of change was too great and the business world too chaotic; so the initiative should be placed with front-line managers. These ideas, linked to Tom Peters, meant that leaders at the centre should support the moves of frontline managers, who were not to be constrained by corporate strategic plans, although the top leaders were to provide visions. Meanwhile, in the public sector in the mid-1990s a major rethink of the role
of the state was underway. The 1980s’ ideas of neoliberalism – rolling back the state, privatizing, deregulating and cutting income taxes – was no longer in vogue. There was now a call for the state to be more effective; this meant being more effective in supporting national economic and social development, with the state being more strategic, more focused and more frequently taking on the role of catalyst for societal problem solving. Leadership became a ‘hot issue’. In recent years, right up to the present day, governments responded by creating competency frameworks and talent management to create the leaders needed in the new public sector.
