36 November 2016 November 2016 37 Expert guide: Psychology 2016 Leadership in the 21st Century is marked by in-novation, technology and change with a shift from production of goods to the delivery of services and information bringing about de-mands for different kinds of leadership. China, Japan, Africa, and Latin America, “third world countries” once colonised by Western power for cheap labor and rich resources now seek liberation and self-governance. With their pro-ductivity now far outpacing that of “advanced” Western nations and the proliferation of mul-tinational corporations in the global economic market, the 21st Century marks our interdepen-dence and need to cooperate if we are to achieve world peace, create a sustainable environment, eliminate terrorism, and promote global eco-nomic and social wellbeing. This means redefining leadership explained by leadership traits to the multiple social iden-tities that leaders bring. It means valuing and respecting differences across dimensions of diversity, i.e., race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion and disability. It means re-cognising the privilege that dominant groups experience against the oppression that mino-rity groups face. How do leaders and members remain authentic in such an environment? Can they bring all of their identities to their leader-ship?”Diverse leaders coming from minority groups en. Racial/ethnic minority leaders similarly are constrained when perceived as “exceptions” to their race when they made an accomplishment, when they are commonly asked “how their group thinks”. The question is: Does Difference Makes a Diffe-rence? The answer is a resounding “Yes” because the privilege held by dominant group members often render them oblivious to or disbelieving of these experiences that those from minority groups face. For example, an African Ameri-can woman being straight forward and asser-tive may be perceived as confrontational and intimidating while an Asian American woman being respectful, indirect and modest may be perceived as passive. Female Native American leaders may emphasize “standing beside, rather than behind, their men in an effort to preserve and protect their tribal treaty rights”, but then be faulted for not holding their own as women (Chin & Trimble, 2014, p. 283). We have pilot data on diverse leaders to show that being diffe-rent often means: (i) being the one and only, (ii) always being the outsider, (iii) having to work twice as hard to be ½ as good, (iv) always having to prove yourself, (v) being challenged on your competence, or (vi) having to be extraordinary. It often means living in two different worlds as they negotiate between different communities. So what kinds of leaders do we want for the often must learn the rules of the game and play by them as they enter the power elite. This of-ten shapes their identities and leadership be-haviours as they conform to become more like those already in power. We saw this historically as female leaders rose to power; it was their relationship with powerful men that enabled them to break the taboo against female leaders. Dowager Cixi, Empress of China and Cleopa-tra, Queen of Egypt were two such examples where the social zeitgeist led them to be viewed as invalid and tyrannical leaders who seized power and ascended to power through their al-liance with and seduction of powerful men of their times. Despite their major social reforms and military conquests, they are remembered primarily for their “feminine wickedness”, se-ductress powers, and “iron-willed” characters. Some of the most powerful female political lea-ders since continue to be portrayed by these gendered expectations. Many who have made transformational changes have been portrayed as “iron ladies”, for example, Corazon Aquino (Phillipines), Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (Liberia), Yingluck Shinawatra (Thailand), Dilma Vana Rousseff (Brazil) who rose to power through revolution and Golda Meir (Israel), Margaret Thatcher (England), Angela Merkel (Germany) who rose to leadership from within the system. Their alternate portrayal as “mothers” or saints reflect society’s ambivalence about strong wom-21st Century? Command and Control types of leadership are probably on their way out. There is simply not one model for a diverse popula-tion. The research literature increasingly points to transformational, collaborative and rela-tional oriented leadership styles as models for 21st Century leadership —redefining leadership based on change, relationships and influence. Transformational leadership is characterised as: visionary, promoting change, inspirational, innovative, and charismatic (Burns, 1978) be-came popular in the 1980s as US corporations began to experience rapid change internation-ally and multinational corporations began to flourish. Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen (2003) found female leaders to be more transformational than male leaders. Charisma as a characteristic, however, is problematic be-cause it defines male charisma—i.e., someone with a commanding presence exuding confi-dence, strength, and a personal magic or appeal that arouses loyalty or enthusiasm. Women’s charisma is often more associated with being warm, nurturing and interpersonal, i.e., about persuasion and smiles.Collaborative Leadership is characterised as: strategically choosing to cooperate in order to accomplish a shared outcome and accepting responsibility for building or helping to ensure the success of a heterogeneous team (Rubin, USA Many who have made transformational changes have been portrayed as “iron ladies”, for example, Corazon Aquino, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Yingluck Shinawatra & Dilma Vana Rousseff who rose to power through revolution