“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.”
Albert Einstein
“The Master’s tools will never dismantle the Master’s house.”
Audre Lord
Next week, from the 22nd to the 23rd of September, 2024, world “leaders” — heads of state and government from across the globe—will convene in New York City for the United Nations Secretary General’s Summit of the Future, on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly.
When I first heard about the Summit and its mission —to create a better world for both ourselves and future generations— I was excited. It felt bold, brave and visionary. Coming out of the pandemic, it was exactly what we needed as a global humanity. Inspiration. Hope. And most of all: action to get us to a better tomorrow.
Like the Secretary General, I believe that achieving a world in which all humans, all other species and the ecosystems that sustain us all, are thriving, not just surviving. A world with full equality with all humans enjoying the same rights and freedoms. A world free of hate and prejudice. A world without war. A world in which humans are tied together by the thread of shared connection as one humanity. Connected by their love for one another and everything around them. Achieving this world, is in fact, the overarching mission of the Loss and Damage Collaboration.
This quote from the Secretary General on why we needed the a? Summit of the Future so urgently particularly resonated with me:
"We cannot shape a future for our grandchildren with a system from the time of our grandparents."
Indeed we can’t. Our systems are broken. If we want to create a better tomorrow for future generations and a thriving world for ourselves, then we’re going to have to transform the systems that underpin how our world works and most often, doesn’t work.
These systems —like so much of what ails the world today — were built on the foundations of colonialism. The imbalance of power between so-called developed and developing countries and the control of the Global South by the Global North persists today. The foundations of our “modern day” systems enabled slavery and encouraged the extraction of resources from countries in the Global South to fuel the development of those in the Global North. These systems have enabled white supremacy and systemic and institutional racism. They are rife with power imbalances, which have exacerbated inequality both between and within countries, allowing extreme poverty to persist despite the fact that there is enough to go around. The project that colonialism began, these systems perpetuate.
That’s where we are. But it’s not where we have to stay.
My excitement about the Summit of the Future sprung from the notion that it might be the place where the world’s “leaders” come together to finally address these pervasive issues. I hoped that they would produce a Pact in which the countries of the world agreed to forge new systems or at least to radically transform the ones in place now to be fit for purpose for a brighter tomorrow. I hoped that in the Pact we would see commitments to provide finance at the scale of the needs to enable climate action on all fronts in developing countries.
My enthusiasm was very short-lived, however, lasting until I saw the zero draft of the Pact for the Future early this year. When I first read it I thought to myself: Wait, what? Seriously? This is what the world’s “leaders” have to serve up to our global human family in response to the call to create a better world for future generations? This is not transformation. This is not the “action oriented” way forward it has been hyped as; at least not when it comes to climate action.
Unfortunately I can’t say further iterations of the Pact have lifted my spirits. The Pact for the Future is now in its fourth iteration just days before the Summit begins. It starts out on the right path, acknowledging that we are at a pivotal point in human history and if we don’t change course we risk a future that none of us wants to live in.
The first paragraphs speak to hope and opportunities and the potential for global transformation based on our common humanity. The architects of the Pact —the heads of state and government who will eventually affirm it— express a belief in the possibility of a brighter future for all humans and resolve to take the actions needed to chart a course to that future. The Pact also acknowledges that the wellbeing of both current and future generations and the sustainability of the planet itself depend on their willingness to take action.
In the Pact, climate change is framed as one of the greatest challenges of our time, with developing countries bearing the brunt of its impacts. To address this global challenge, the countries of the world commit to “accelerate” progress towards meeting their obligations under both the Convention and its Paris Agreement.
The Pact is certainly a step forward and it represents progress on many fronts. However, it falls so short —so very short— of committing to the climate actions we need to bring us to that brighter future.
The Pact reaffirms the goals of the Paris Agreement, including its temperature goals, and stresses the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this “critical decade” on the basis of the best available science and reflecting equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
But let’s remember that the Convention stressed the urgency of taking ambitious mitigation action to avoid loss and damage over 30 years ago. This is one of the many reasons why - as previous iterations of the Pact acknowledged - trust is at an all time low in multilateral processes, including most notably, in the global climate regime. It must be rebuilt from the ground up and to do so, is going to require a lot more concrete action and support for developing countries. Because, let’s remember, we are in the era of Loss and Damage, as my mentor Saleemul Huq used to say, precisely because developed countries failed to take the lead, to do what they said they would do when they said they would do it.
In the Pact, heads of state and government express concern with the slow process on climate action. But this is not the first time they have done so. So tell me, what’s different about the Pact for the Future? How is it going to motivate the urgent action needed to limit global average temperature below 1.5°C, a goal many say is impossible, though I remain optimistic that we can turn this ship around because doing so is the only way to limit the extent of future loss and damage - both economic and non-economic in nature - for households, communities and countries on the frontlines of climate change?
How is the Summit of the Future going to rebuild trust in a system that many say is broken?
Similarly on the climate finance front, while the Pact recognises the importance of means of implementation and support for developing countries to address the impacts of climate change which are rising in frequency, intensity and scale, it lacks substance on how support at the scale of the needs in developing countries will be mobilised.
In fact, the Pact only reaffirms the commitment to set a new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG) at the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP 29) from a floor of 100 billion USD. It says nothing about meeting the scale of the needs on the ground in developing countries. Nothing about the need to mobilise trillions for climate action —for mitigation, adaptation AND Loss and Damage [For more information see our submission on to the eleventh Technical Expert Dialogue on the NCQG for a calculation of how much climate finance is needed from the NCQG]. Nor does it say anything meaningful about the need for grant-based finance to be delivered under the NCQG to ensure that developing countries are not pushed deeper into debt.
As I wrote the first draft of this blog, negotiations on the NCQG were taking place in Baku, Azerbaijan. It felt like déjà vu (did I go back in time?) with developing countries continuing to stress the needs —which are legit in the trillions— and developed countries countering that they won’t discuss the needs until the contributor base is expanded (i.e. they expect developing countries with large economies to step up, even though the Convention and its Paris Agreement make it clear that developed countries must take the lead and they have yet to do so).
As I wrote last year, you can’t change the rules in the middle of the game, and yet developed countries are continually trying to do just that. It’s the same old, same old tired view that developed countries have been articulating since the Convention was being negotiated nearly 35 years ago. More pointing fingers. More seeing multilateral processes as zero sum games rather than opportunities to come together to collectively create a better world. How is the Pact going to change that?
Unfortunately, the Pact only mentions loss and damage once. Just once. And this is when it welcomes the operationalisation of the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage and the pledges made to the Fund at COP28. So there is a lot of room for improvement.
When it does mention loss and damage, the Pact doesn’t meaningfully engage with the level of finance needed to capitalise the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage. We have been calling for the fund to be capitalised with at least 400 USD billion a year just for economic loss and damage. However, more recent estimates by our team of researchers project that the cost of addressing loss and damage in developing countries are more likely in the range of 724.43 billion USD a year for this current decade). Rather than engage with the needs, the Pact simply commits to:
“Further operationalize and capitalize the new funding arrangements, including the Fund, for responding to loss and damage.”
Further capitalise at what level? Where are the metrics? Where are the targets? Who is responsible for paying? The Pact is meant to be, “action-oriented”. But the substance is woefully lacking on climate action. We need to start engaging with the trillions if we are going to create a thriving world and yet we can’t even mobilise 1 billion USD to capitalise the Fund. How are we going to get from here to there? There being a place in time where the needs in developing countries and the households and communities within them, are addressed at all levels. Because that is what we need to do to ensure flourishing societies and a thriving planet.
And what about the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage, and its resourcing needs? They must also be recognised, for without a fully resourced Santiago Network, developing countries will struggle to get the technical assistance they need to assess their loss and damage needs and access finance from the Fund.
Similarly, the Pact falls short on the adaptation finance needed to minimise loss and damage, by only recognizing:
“the significant adaptation finance needs of developing countries between now and 2030”.
There is, however, one bright light in the commitment to “triple renewable energy capacity globally” by 2030 and “transition away from fossil fuels” in a “just, orderly and equitable manner to achieve net zero by 2050. The Pact does not include any guidance for how to do that, but still it is a positive development. But otherwise, the climate change section of the Pact just falls so very short of what is needed to create a thriving world. So very, very short. It’s not bold. It’s not brave. And it’s certainly not visionary.
Similarly, the Declaration on Future Generations, currently in its third iteration, starts off on a positive front, affirming the principles of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and recommitting to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It recognises that the actions and inactions of present generations have created a “multiplier effect” of impacts on future generations.
In the Declaration, heads of state and government resolve to ensure that present generations protect the needs and interests of future generations. They recognise children and youth as change agents and acknowledge that in order to achieve a sustainable, equitable and just world —what I would call a thriving world — we must learn the lessons from the past and apply them. One of the ways they envision doing so is to build “stronger, more effective and resilient multilateral systems based on international law”.
The Declaration is underpinned by a set of principles that guide the commitments which include prioritising addressing climate change and other environmental challenges based on common but differentiated responsibilities stressing that the principle of “climate justice” is critically important to some. However, there is only one specific commitment on climate change which is:
“Investing in the capacity to better prepare for and respond to future global risks, crises and challenges and using evidence-based planning and foresight to avoid and mitigation risks, while ensuring the poorest and most vulnerable do not bear disproportionate costs and burdens of mitigation, adaptation, restoration and resilience building.”
There’s no mention of mobilising the trillions —or even hundreds of billions— to enable climate action worldwide. There is reference to equipping multilateral systems, including the United Nations, to enable them to support countries in implementing the Declaration. But it’s unclear what that means. Are the UN and the multilateral systems going to mobilise the trillions?
As I articulated above, the Declaration does commit to building a stronger, more effective and resilient multi-lateral system based on international law which is essential to fulfill its vision of a brighter tomorrow. But it has a ways to go to unpack what that means. As a cornerstone of international and environmental law, the polluter pays principle must not only be acknowledged, but also applied across multilateral systems. One example which has huge potential is the Climate Damages Tax.
The historical responsibility of developed countries for climate change is inscribed in the Convention, which is the foundational treaty —we could think of it like an umbrella— under which the Paris Agreement sits. The principles of the Convention also apply to the Paris Agreement. By ratifying both, developed countries have accepted their responsibility for climate change and made commitments to bear the costs of addressing it by providing the finance, technology and capacity (what we call “support” in the UNFCCC) necessary to enable climate action in developing countries.
The polluter pays principle is also inscribed in the Rio Declaration which states in principle 2 that countries have a responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdictions do not do harm to other countries or areas outside their jurisdiction. Principle 13 prescribes that countries cooperate to develop further international law on liability and compensation for the adverse effects of environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdictions. Keep in mind, Dear Reader, that the Rio Declaration was adopted in 1992, the same year the Convention was adopted. The failure to develop compensation and liability mechanisms is because developed countries have used everything in their arsenal to oppose any attempts to do so.
We’ve had 30+ years to develop liability and compensation mechanisms, something that Vanuatu for the Alliance of Small Island States called for in 1991 when it developed a proposal for a mechanism to compensate small island developing states for loss and damage from sea level rise. So again, what makes the Declaration for Future Generations different? How are heads of states and government going to ensure that they do what they said they’d do, both individually and collectively? And how are developing countries going to be supported (in concrete not abstract terms) to implement those commitments and actions that are laid out in the Declaration?
The Declaration on Future Generations is ambitious on many fronts and if all the commitments and actions were achieved, the world would indeed be brighter, but not yet thriving. Because unfortunately, in their treatment of climate change the Declaration and the Pact do not even represent incremental change, let alone transformation. And like the Pact, the Declaration is not bold. It’s not brave. And it’s certainly not visionary.
That said, it’s a start and it is certainly a step forward from where we are now. But clearly we’ve got some work to do to implement what the Declaration and the Pact set out to do but have so far failed to achieve.
It’s time to roll up our sleeves, Dear Reader, and dig deep.
Because we can create a thriving world. We absolutely can. But we’re going to need some pretty heavy tools to do that, underpinned by strong leadership and recognition that we can’t keep tweaking what’s broken. We need real transformation. Not just aspiring to transformation. Not just talking about it. But actually transforming the systems that are keeping us spinning our wheels. The systems that are preventing us from achieving the kind of world we all want to live in.
To do so, we must step out of our limited mindsets, expand our imaginations and see that we are literally surrounded by possibilities and opportunities for a better tomorrow. To capitalise on those opportunities we are going to need strong leadership on all fronts.
I had the great fortune of doing a deep dive on leadership, both the literature and what it looks like in real life, over the course of several years while doing my PhD. I studied the way in which leadership shaped Loss and Damage policy in Bangladesh. It was a fascinating experience observing change makers in their natural habitat. However, before I got to my field work, I read a great many papers and books on leadership. I encountered a great many giants in doing so, whose work I built on in my thesis.
So, I thought, why not use that knowledge and stand on the shoulders of those giants once more to suggest a framework for cultivating the right kinds of leadership to create the kind of world we all want to live in? The kind of leadership that is lacking - at least in the climate change sections —of the Declaration for Future Generations and the Pact for the Future. [Note I did not engage in the Global Digital Compact as it’s not my area of expertise but I do know that a digital transformation is extremely important to creating the world we want as well.]
Before I get into the types of leadership we need, I want to clarify what “leadership” is. We use the term “leader” very liberally, almost flippantly without really engaging with what it means to be a leader. People who sit at the top of organisational organograms are called “leaders”. Those at the helm of governments are called “leaders”. But many of those people are, in fact, managers.
There is a distinct difference between a leader and a manager. Leaders advocate for change while managers tend to focus on maintaining the status quo and promoting stability (see: House and Howell, 1992; Kotterman, 2006; Lunenburg, 2007). Leaders create visions of alternative futures and then inspire others to work towards those futures. A vast majority of heads of state and government don’t want to rock the boat because they don’t want to risk their political careers. They therefore stay managers to maintain their power and perpetuate the status quo.
This is a challenge for transformation. Because transformation is going to rock the boat. Transformation is fundamental change that alters systems and addresses the root causes of vulnerability, inequality and many other things that ail the world (see: Roberts and Pelling, 2019). Yet, the literature on transformation tells us that those in power, those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, tend not to want fundamental change (see: Pelling, 2011, O’Brien, 2012 and Pelling et al., 2015). If we truly want transformation then we’re going to need strong leadership and bold, brave and visionary leaders. Here are some ideas of what that looks like…
Leaders who develop visions of an alternative future
Developing visions of an alternative future —a new reality to work towards— is a key characteristic of leaders. There are different ways that leaders do this and different types of leadership they employ to do so. Charismatic leaders use personality characteristics such as charisma —hence the name— to inspire others (see: Yorges et al., 1999).
Transformational leaders use traits like dynamism and enthusiasm to get others excited about achieving a common vision and then inspire them to do what’s needed to achieve that vision for the greater good (see: Bass, 1985; Turner et al., 2002). The literature tells us that leaders are more likely to be effective if they are liked and respected. Mia Motley is both a charismatic and a transformational leader and a good example of what one person (and the team behind them) can inspire.
We need heads of state and government to develop visions of an alternative future, which they have started to do with the Declaration for Future Generations and the Pact for the Future. Now they need to chart a course for how to get there with concrete actions, metrics and indicators to measure progress, somewhat like we did with the SDGs. And that brings us to…
Leaders who lead by example
Leaders must walk the walk, not just talk the talk.They can’t be putting strict rules in place to restrict movement of the general population during a global pandemic and then have Christmas parties for themselves. We all know how that turned out.
Transformational and charismatic leaders both lead by example, taking the “moral high road” (see: Avolio and Yammarino, 2015:xxvii). As such, they tend to do what is right rather than what is easy (see: Bass, 1998; Avolio et al., 1999). Both types of leaders boost morale and inspire others by appealing to common values such peace, justice and equality - things we all —or at least most of us—want more of in the world. In doing so they raise the “collective consciousness” of societies (see: Sarros and Santora, 2001:385).
Wise leaders also lead by example, but do so in a slightly different way, guiding others to become leaders. While they may be at the forefront of movements, wise leaders also develop a cadre of other leaders deployed through the institutions (be it government or non-government) they work with and through (see: Chatterjee, 2006). This kind of leadership can be witnessed in the joint statement and submission made by the Alliance of Small Island States and the Least Developed Countries group during the second meeting under the Ad Hoc Work Program of the NCQG in June in Bonn in which they called for new and additional climate finance for all three pillars of climate action, primarily grant based finance for adaptation and loss and damage, and a NCQG that is science based that meets the actual needs of developing countries.
To create a thriving world we’ll need heads of state and government of developed countries to step up, to fulfill the obligations and commitments they’ve already made. They will have to broaden their imaginations to see that they can mobilise trillions to support climate action in developing countries by implementing the right regulatory and policy frameworks. To become leaders, these individuals will need to stop living in the false reality of a zero sum game and see that transformation is good for both the citizens of their countries and for the global citizenry. It’s not either/and but both/and. We can have it all if only those at the helm of developed countries could see that. But that will take wisdom and knowledge, which brings us to…
Leaders who are wise and knowledgeable
Both knowledge and wisdom are essential components of leadership. Transformational leaders educate themselves to increase their knowledge of critical issues and having done so, raise awareness of those issues to inspire change (see: Bass, 2008). Unlike charismatic and transformational leaders, pragmatic leaders do not develop visions of alternative futures nor do they use their personal attributes to inspire others. Instead, they use knowledge, wisdom and problem-solving skills to identify barriers to change and then develop ways to overcome them (see:Yukl, 1999; Mumford and van Doorn, 2001). Leaders driving climate policy must be informed by the science which makes the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change essential to developing pathways to a thriving world.
Pragmatic leaders have their place but they don’t tend to inspire others to the extent that charismatic and transformational leaders do, and thus, it can be more difficult for these types of leaders to inspire change. This is why we need collective or crowdsourced leadership: many different kinds of leaders playing different roles to enable the transformation we need to create a thriving world. I’ll come to that later.
An emerging theme in the literature is the idea that leaders are not just wise about the world but also about themselves. They know who they are. Cultivating self-awareness seen by many to be essential to strong leadership. There is a body of literature which focuses on the transformation that leaders must undergo themselves. Leaders are, after all, at the end of the day, simply human. Thus, to cultivate leadership they need to do inner work to understand themselves and to grow as humans (see: Senge et al., 2005; Scharmer, 2016).
To create the world we want, we will need wise leaders who rise above politics to see the true nature of the world. Leaders who understand that if we can imagine it, we can create it —but only if we work together. We must revel in our shared connection as a global humanity. And those leaders will need to inspire us, which brings us to...
Leaders who cultivate trust and have “positive personality characteristics”
To create a thriving world, heads of state and government are going to need to cultivate trust, first and foremost among each other and then with others. Right now the level of trust is low in our multilateral systems. Developed countries have let all of us down with their failure to act and with the way they point fingers at others. A case in point the NCQG negotiations. But as my kindergarten teacher used to say, “When you point a finger at someone else you still have four pointing at yourself.”
Those at the helm of developed countries are going to need to step up, recognise our shared connection (ie. it’s not us versus them) and build trust by fulfilling commitments and obligations. For this we will need authentic leaders who have qualities like confidence, hopefulness and optimism. They also have a strong moral character (see: Avolio et al., 2004). This is critical as optimistic people tend to be more widely admired and respected than pessimists. And we need more optimists in political power to first show us that we can create a different world by working together and then to help us get there. And finally that brings us to the need for? crowdsourcing leadership…
Crowdsourcing leadership
It’s rare for one person to embody all of the above types of leadership (and there are many more I haven't mentioned). Complexity leadership occurs when many different actors or “change agents” interact with one another through complex networks (such as multilateral processes) to bring change (see: Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Complexity leaders cultivate an enabling environment that encourages creative problem solving, adaptability and learning. They do so by bringing different people together with different perspectives of both the problem and potential solutions to it. And that leads to more potential solutions and more innovative solutions. in the climate policy space that means everyone should be welcome at the decision making table, particularly those most affected by those decisions.
We will not create the world we want without drawing on the wisdom and knowledges of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Nor will we do so without integrating the perspectives of children, youth, women and non-binary people, LGBTQ+ individuals and communities and other traditionally marginalised groups. There are leaders at all levels and they must be empowered to become the boldest, bravest and most visionary agents of change they can be.
Collective or shared leadership stresses the importance of creating and strengthening cultures that cultivate leadership, recognising that multiple leaders are needed to drive change (Yukl, 2012). The outcomes are determined by how effectively leaders coordinate with one another which incentivises coordination and collaboration.
To create a thriving world —for both ourselves and future generations— we will need both complexity and collective leadership. Heads of state and government will need to work together, again with developed countries taking the lead, to see beyond borders to the kind of world we could create by working together as one humanity.
Where do we go from here?
Maybe I haven’t painted the rosiest picture of Summit of the Future. I’m actually much more optimistic than I sound. Sure, there’s work to do, definitely. But I also see so much potential and possibility on the horizon. I am honestly excited for what comes next —because I still have so much faith in humanity— and I’m looking forward to being in the near vicinity when it does.
I will be at the Action Days preceding the Summit but not at the Summit itself. I don’t have access on the day but I’ll be watching the developments from afar. On the first day of the Summit of the Future I”ll be at the Climate Justice Summit and the second day I’ll be hanging out at Solutions House after a breakfast with the folks at Climate Vine. During the course of Climate Week I’m going to go on a march with Project Dandelion for the rights of women and the planet, see a film at the Climate Film Festival and I also hope to go to the Climate Science Fair. I’m VERY excited to be going to a talk by Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson at the Science Friday Bookclub on her new book What If We Get It Right?.
Over the course of a week I’ll hear stories of incredible women leading transformational change and inspiring examples of Indigenous leadership, wisdom and knowledge and why we won’t create a thriving world without it. I am going to meet new friends and revel in connections with old ones. I will take this annual opportunity to fill my mind, body and soul —and my heart— with inspiration to sustain me for another year of doing the work I do in the word.
While I get inspired outside the UN, I will be thinking of all the folks inside UN headquarters. I’ll be sending those attending the Summit of the Future my love. I’ll be holding a vision of a thriving world in my mind’s eye. One that I know we can create together. Because while the Pact for the Future and the Declaration on Future Generations in their current iterations are far from what is needed to create a thriving world, it’s not too late to get there. We can be bold. We can be brave. And we can be visionary. And with the right leadership that’s exactly what we’ll do.
Erin Roberts is the founder and global lead of the Loss and Damage Collaboration. She’s passionate about leadership and its role in creating a better world. She will be in NYC for Climate Week and hopes to see you there. If you’d like to meet to discuss ideas for creating a thriving world, please get in touch with her on erin [@] lossanddamagecollaboration.org.
Acknowledgements: Erin would like to thank her colleagues Teo Ormond-Skeaping and Tariq Jowahir for their very helpful inputs and comments to improve this blog (though any errors remain her own).
References (and further reading):
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M. and Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72:441–462.
Avolio, B.J. and Yammarino, F.J. (2015). Introduction to, and Overview of, Transformational and Charismatic Leadership Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead 10th Anniversary Edition (Monographs in Leadership Management, Volume 5). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.
Bass, B. M. (2008). Handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th edition). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Brown, B. (2018). Dare To Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations.Whole Hearts. London: Random House. Find it here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/dare-to-lead-brave-work-tough-conversations-whole-hearts-brene-brown/9586434?ean=9780399592522.
Case, P., French, F. and Simpson, P. (2011). The philosophy of leadership. In: Sage Handbook of Leadership, Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Grint, K., Jackson, B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (eds.). London: Sage, pp.242-254.
Chakraborty, S.K. (1995). Wisdom Leadership: Leading Self by the SELF. Journal of Human Values 1(2):205-220.
Chatterjee, D. (2006). Wise Ways: Leadership as Relationship. Journal of Human Values 12(2):153-160.
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. and Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of the irrelative validity. Personnel Psychology 64:7–52.
Dickson, M.W., Castaño, N., Magomaeva, A. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2012). Conceptualizing leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business 47(4):483-492.
Godin, S. (2008). Tribes: We Need You To Lead Us. London: Penguin House. Find it here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/tribes-we-need-you-to-lead-us-with-earbuds-seth-godin/15559636?ean=9781591842330.
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S.D. and Platow, M.J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: identity, influence and power. New York: Psychology Press.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A. and Linsky, M. (2009) The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World. Boston: Cambridge Leadership Associates.
House, R.J. and Howell, J.M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 3(2):81-108.
Hunter, J. (1998). The Servant: A Simple Story About the True Essence of Leadership. New York: Crown Publishing Group. Find it here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-servant-a-simple-story-about-the-true-essence-of-leadership-james-c-hunter/10450476?ean=9780761513698.
Judge, T. A., and Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 85:751–765.
Kotter, J. (2012): Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Review Press. Find it here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/leading-change-john-p-kotter/10608280?ean=9781422186435.
Kotter, J.P. (1990). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review May-June:156-167
Kotterman, J. (2006). Leadership Versus Management: What’s the Difference? The Journal for Quality and Participation 29(2):13-17.
Lunenburg, G.C. (2007). Leadership versus Management: A key distinction – in theory and practice. In: Educational administration: The roles of leadership and management, Dembowski, F.L. (ed.). Houston, TX: The NCPEA Press/Rice University.
Luthans, F. and Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive developmental approach. In: Positive organizational scholarship, Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (eds.). San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler, pp. 241-261.
Mumford, M.D. and Van Doorn, J.R (2001). The leadership of pragmatism: Reconsidering Franklin in the age of charisma. The Leadership Quarterly 12(3):279-309.
O’Brien, K. (2012). Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress in Human Geography 36(5): 667-676.
Pelling, M. (2011). Adaptation to climate change: From resilience to transformation. New York and London: Routledge.
Pelling, M., O’Brien, K., and Matyas, D. (2015). Adaptation and transformation. Climatic Change 128(1-2): 1-17.
Roberts, E. and Pelling, M. (2018). Climate change-related loss and damage: translating the global policy agenda for national policy processes Climate and Development 10(1):4-17.
Sarros, J.C. and Santora, J.C. (2001). The transformational-transactional leadership model in practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 22(8):383-394.
Senge, P., Scharmer, C.O., Jaworski, J. and Flowers, B.S. (2005). Presence: Exploring Profound Change in People, Organizations, and Society. London and Boston: Nicolas Brealey Publishing.
Scharmer, O. (2016). Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Sinek, S. (2017). Leaders Eat Last: Why Some Teams Pull Together and Others Don’t. London: Penguin Books. Find it here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/leaders-eat-last-why-some-teams-pull-together-and-others-don-t-simon-sinek/7676921?ean=9781591848011.
Sinek, S. (2011). Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone To Take Action. London: Penguin Books. Find it here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/start-with-why-how-great-leaders-inspire-everyone-to-take-action-simon-sinek/16673537?ean=9781591846444.
Turner, N., Barling, J., Zacharatos, A., Snyder, C.R. and Lopez, S. J. (eds.) (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Uhl-Bien, M. and Marion, R. (2008). Complexity leadership—A framework for leadership in the twenty-first century. In: Complexity leadership: Conceptual Foundations (Volume 1), Uhl-Bien, M. and Marion, R. (eds.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, pp. 1-16.
Uhl-Bien M, Marion, R. and McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the Industrial Age to the Knowledge Era. The Leadership Quarterly 18:298–31.
Willink, J and L. Babin (2017). Extreme Ownership: How US Navy Seals Lead and Win. London: St. Martin’s Press. Find it here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/extreme-ownership-how-u-s-navy-seals-lead-and-win-jocko-willink/8967655?ean=9781250183866.
Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M. and Strickland, O.J. (1999). The effect of leader outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptions of charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology 84: 428–436.
Yukl, G. (2012). Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What Questions Need More Attention. Academy of Management Perspectives (November):66-85.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic theories. The Leadership Quarterly 10(2):285-305.
