The twenty-first century. What does this era represent for humankind? In order to discuss these issues, one must first identify the implications of this epoch. It is a time of speedy change, war, poverty, starvation, and advances in social science. Consequently, it is a time of immense changes and supercharged issues, we are well advised to adopt multiple views of leadership to anticipate, manage and implement those required changes. A willingness to listen, charisma, transformation, empowerment, are some of the keys to effective leaders. Examination of leadership from various paradigmatic perspectives is useful in attacking a multilayered issue such as leadership in the twenty-first century. In this discussion posting I will explore the various attributes of leadership that I feel are important for today's leaders and I will address the five paradigmatic perspectives provided in Fennel (2001).

n order to relate effectively with others, one must learn to listen. Openness, patience, emotional strength, and a desire to understand are all character traits needed for true listening to occur. According to Covey (1989), it is simpler to operate from a low emotional level and provide high-level advice. In the business world during acquisitions and mergers this behaviour is often exhibited and simply does not work (p. 37). The employees are not fooled and a climate of low trust emerges rather than the more desirable high trust climate (p. 38). In this scenario the leader often utilizes their position and power to force the employees to acquiesce and follow their directives. In this structuralist paradigmatic scenario, the leader has borrowed strength from their position and authority which creates weakness in the borrower by reinforcing dependence upon external factors to accomplish tasks. It also limits independent reasoning, internal discipline, and growth in the employee. Consequently, both the leader and the employee are weakened through being forced to acquiesce and their relationship is eroded. Trust and cooperation is replaced with fear and intimidation leading in my opinion to lower productivity (p. 39).

In truth, this sounds like an ideal organizational climate where all members share one common political affiliation and work in an environment of trust and reciprocity. I find however, that in this environment the employee or group member is stifled by a need to find a common ground with other members and a need to fulfill the political agenda. I feel that the spontaneity and ability for true ingenuity and creation of new ideas and meanings is stifled in this type of environment where there is certainly a desire to conform to the norms, wishes, and goals of the group.

Feminist post-structuralism and leadership have developed from the theories of Foucault and have been extended by Grogan and others in the field of Feminist research.

I believe that power can be a system that is variable and yet fixed, mutable and immutable. The state of power is dependent upon the leader of the organization, the climate and culture that leader has created, and its membership (whether they have bought into that particular vision and leadership paradigm). A leader who is poststructuralist in their approach would likely engage in discursive practices and in disciplinary and bio-power relationships as per Foucault's theories. This may assist an organization in

Some common words found in the essay are:
According Covey, Gail LaFleur, Robbins Stuart-Kotze, , Bentz Shapiro, According Weedon, fennel 2001, constructivist paradigm, leadership paradigm, Inquiry Buddhist, paradigmatic perspectives, twenty-first century, transformational leader, patterson 1993, patterson 1993 57, attributes leadership, type environment, cited fennel, cited fennel 2001,
Approximate Word count = 1667
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)