Introduction
Leadershipâits styles and directions change over time. Successful leaders in all climes and cultures pursue accurate visions of the future depending upon how correctly they interpret the needs, resources, threats, and opportunities of their societies. Leadership in this discussion generally covers business and industry although the influence of political and cultural leadership on these sectors must not be ignored. They will be recognized as necessary.
This short narrative highlights visionary leadership in three distinct historical periods: The Industrial Revolution in Europe and similar developments in America (18th through the 19th centuries), followed by reflections on leadership in the 20th and the 21st centuries in a cross-cultural context. This should by no means imply lack of visionary leadership in science, technology and industry in preindustrial non-European societies; but doing so would take me to a different realm of discourse I have extensively covered elsewhere (Ahmad, 2013).
Leadership Theory and Research
Management and political science literature is replete with discussion on the types and assessment of leadership quality and effectiveness in different organizational and societal settings. In the organizational settings, the discourse is about management style and its impacts on resource generation, employee motivation, productivity, and profits (Raelin, 2016). The American management guru Peter Drucker reckoned management to be about setting organizational objectives and achieving results in certain key areas. Edwards Deming and Joseph Juran emphasized the critical role of statistical quality control in production and its effect on organizational success. Michael Porter developed models for the broader spectra of national economies (Foss, 2016). C. K. Prahalad, on the other hand, is author of the revolutionary concept of The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, suggesting business and resource development strategies for the wealth and welfare of roughly three billion people at the lowest rungs in the global economy (Prahalad, 2012).
Not far from the sentiments implied in Prahaladâs work is the notion of servant leadership often attributed to the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu. Its contemporary interpretation is due to the work of Robert Greenleaf. A servant leader is primarily concerned with serving the people in his/her watch rather than commanding and controlling them (Dierendonck & Patteron, 2010).
Central to the discussion of leadership , its practice and success at the societal level is Max Weberâs theory of charisma, although the role of charisma at corporate- and institutional-level management must not to be discounted. Charismatic leaders supposedly display personal qualities of grace, charm, eloquence, even physical appearance, and above all, an uncanny ability to connect with their followers and receive in return their love, respect, and often unquestioned obedience (Weber, 1991). As Weber would put it, this is an âideal typeâ of charisma, which in practice may or may not be fully realized for the so-called charismatic leaders. It is noteworthy though that charisma has been used by leaders as means to achieve both negative as well as positive social and political ends. Hitler is often cited as the example of an evil charismatic leader who was able to hoodwink one of the smartest people into collectively not only tolerating but even endorsing his genocide of an estimated 6 million innocent German Jews.
On the positive side of charisma, does Mahatma Gandhi qualify as a charismatic leader? It is debatable. He was diminutive, physically frail, not much of an orator, or holder of political or military power. Yet he was able to mobilize millions of Indians through his message of peace, nonviolence, humility, even love and respect for the enemy, akin to the message of Jesus Christ as understood by over 2.5 billion people on planet earth today (Fisher, 1954). Opinions may differ but in the eyes of this author, Gandhi was a supreme example of charismatic leadership of a positive kind. His life and message continue to inspire millions of people in a world often wreaked by greed and violence.
The brief examination of the history and the future of leadership that follows is informed by the above background theory and research and will be referred to as necessary.
Leadership in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries America
Early American leadership is notable by the likes of Andrew Carnegie, Andrew Mellon, the Rockefeller brothers (John and William), and Henry Ford. What did these three industrialists and business leaders have in common, disregarding for the moment their personal ambitions for money and power? They were able to put their fingers on the economic and social nerves of a newly emerging nation: Carnegie in steel, the Rockefeller brothers in oil, Mellon in banking and investments, and Ford in mass production of automobile (Whitten, 2006). They ruthlessly pursued their visions, often to the detriment of the environment and the well-being of the people immediately around and under them, like their factory workers. They justified their pursuit for the so-called greater good, which translated into massive and rapid industrialization of America to quickly overtake such developments in the back country Western Europeânotably England, France, and Germany. The main difference between the leadership visions in the old and the new worlds was continuing traditionalism in Europe and a frontier mentality in the new world. The nineteenth-century European nations basked in the glory of their colonial exploitations of labor, materials, and markets and looked for more of the same. In the new world, the vision was that of the future: How to create resources of knowledge and materials to build a new country.
It is also noteworthy that alongside their visions of creating wealth for themselves and letting it trickle down a bit, these American leaders also invested heavily in human and cultural development through education, science, and technology. Notable among these initiatives are the Carnegie Mellon University in the city of Pittsburgh, PA, and the Rockefeller University in New York City. The Carnegie Mellon University started as a technical school in 1900. It finally merged with the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research in 1967 to become a world-class facility for education and research in wide fields of science and engineering.
Rockefeller University started in 1900 in New York City, specializing in education and research in the biological and medical sciences, is noted to have been the recipient of several Nobel Prizes for its scientists. The idea of unity in visionary diversity of these American leaders for the economic, social, and human development in their societies is to be underlined for its impacts on making America what it is today: an engine of innovation, economic growth, and opportunityâthe remaining disparity and inequality within it notwithstanding.
Cross-Cultural Contexts of Visionary Leadership
In this section, I intend to highlight examples of visionary leadership in two non-American culture areas: Europe with reference to the UK and Sweden; and Asia with reference to Japan and India . Despite its moribund colonial past in the Middle Ages, the British history is also notable for one thing during that period: the eighteenthânineteenth-century Industrial Revolution. It undoubtedly began there with low-tech textile industry shacks in Lancashire, to ultimately become the leading edge of the British Empire and its colonial economies, notably in India .
Development of steel industry, steam engine, and railroads followed in Britain (Pollard, 2000). Unlike the early American business and industrial leaders described above, it is not easy to pinpoint British entrepreneurs of similar caliber in textile and other industrial sectors, with some notable exceptions. The names of (Sir) Richard Arkwright and James Hargreaves do stand out as early textile industry pioneers for developing machine-based cotton spinning and weaving. In steel industry, the name of (Sir) Richard Henry Bessemer is legion, along with the invention of his Bessemer converter that revolutionized steel industry in Europe, then in America, and subsequently in India and elsewhere. Similarly, the name of James Watt as the inventor of steam engine is familiar to any student of the history of technology and its leadership in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century England. The steam engine technology quickly spread around the world, notably in America under the visionary entrepreneurship of the nineteenth-century railroad tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt, and in the colonial India through the initiative of the East India Company and subsequently by the British government itself.
Sweden, on the contrary, is not generally known for its business and industrial leadership in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe, except for one name, that of Alfred Nobel. Alfred Nobel offers a unique example of visionary leadership in an unusual industrial sector: development of explosives and its impact on the arms industry and armament around the world. His discovery of dynamite is also notable for its connection with the development of mining and excavations for building railways and road networks globally. It is interesting to note that the so-called merchant of death in a mistaken obituary is now universally regarded as a leader whose vision encouraged the generation of scientific discoveries with countless direct and indirect implications for the development of industry, medicine, the economy, literature, and even peace around the world. The Nobel Prize is undoubtedly the most prestigious prize to recognize and thereby encourage excellence in all branches of science, engineering, and medicine since it was first awarded in 1901 after much consternation and controversy among Alfred Nobelâs family and friends. What is equally notable is that this noble vision was born, perhaps, out of ridicule and a sense of guilt for being once mislabeled the âmerchant of deathâ (Fant, 1991).
The Case of Japan
The case of visionary leadership in Japan during the Industrial Revolution and shortly thereafter is generally not recognized with individuals so much as with an era, a unique social and cultural transformation called the Meiji Restoration in the nineteenth century under the dynastic rule of the Emperor Meiji. It is a unique example of collective leadership for creativity and innovation in a culturally homogeneous culture area (Beasley, 1972). However, a quick literature search identified the names of Saigo Takamori and Kido Takayoshi pioneering the technology of shipbuilding, shipyards, iron smelting, and spinning mills through royal patronage, unlike the entrepreneurial leaders in Europe and America recognized above. These developments were undoubtedly responsible, directly or indirectly, for the subsequent militarization of Japan and its imperial ambitions in China and during the Second World War. In the middle of the twentieth century, a war-ravaged Japan engaged in a strategy of technoeconomic development under American patronage unparalleled in the non-Western world.
For the next half a century, the notion of collective leadership was again paramount in rebuilding Japanese economy, industry, and society. In these efforts, the leadership of its Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) to learn from and trade with outsiders was the stuff of technology management textbooks in the 1980s and the 1990s. And so was the notion of collective leadership in Japanese business and industry highlighted by (1) bottom-up decision making involving lower organizational levels, (2) the consensus-based ringi system of management, and (3) quality circles of employees to solve process and production-related problems. Like all things, these practices too have undergone significant changes in Japan and elsewhere they were once admired and practiced (Wokutch, 2014).
The Case of India
Finally, let us look at the history of visionary social and business leadership in one of the fastest growing economies in the world today, India . For nearly two hundred years prior to Independence in 1947, India languished under the yoke of colonialism. Meager modernization efforts in terms of building roads, railways, postal services, health care, and higher education were carried out by the British. India was the largest export market for the British industrial and consumer products. All together, they largely served the colonial rulers in England and their princely underlings in India .
In that climate of political and economic dependency, the names of social reformer Dadabhai Naoroji and the industrial stalwarts Jamsetji Tata and son Dorabji Tata stand out. Starting as a businessman, Naor...