Leadership models are, in many ways, as subject to fashion and overcorrection as any other part of modern life. Each era produces its own corrective; a new framework that pushes back against whatever the previous generation got wrong, took too far or simply grew tired of.
When you’re inside it, managing teams, navigating culture, handling the daily pressure of engagement and performance, there’s rarely time or opportunity to look back. Your momentum is always future-focused. But stepping back occasionally is worth it, because the arc of how we think about leadership reveals something important about where we are now, and why.
What follows is a deliberately subjective glance at the thinkers and leaders who have shaped how we lead, engage and build organizations today. It’s neither exhaustive nor academic!
Systems, then spectacle, then substance
Peter Drucker set the foundation. Working through the 1950s and 60s, he established ideas we now take entirely for granted: knowledge workers, decentralization, the importance of managing by objectives rather than instinct. His contribution was essentially structural, a rational framework for organizations still running mostly on hierarchy, heritage or pure gut feel.
Tom Peters was the antidote to that. Energetic, provocative, almost evangelical, his 1982 book In Search of Excellence studied 43 of America’s most admired companies and distilled what made them tick. Peters made management feel urgent and even exciting. The irony, visible only in hindsight, is that many of his star companies stumbled badly within a decade. A timely reminder that energy and excellence are not always the same thing.
Come the 90s, Stephen Covey offered something more measured, perhaps even moralistic. Where Peters was about corporate excellence, Covey was about personal integrity. He recast management as a values-driven discipline, with trust and self-mastery at its center, rather than spectacle, transformation or disruption. His influence was quieter, but for many leaders, more durable and relatable.
By the early 2000s, Jim Collins had become the MBA’s reference point. Analytical and evidence-led, Collins pushed back against the cult of the charismatic CEO, arguing that the most enduring companies were built on disciplined people, disciplined thought, and disciplined action. It was a sober counterweight to the personality-driven leadership model that had dominated the previous decade
The leaders who define 2026
Which brings us to now, and two figures who represent something meaningfully different.
Mary Barra (the Chair and CEO at General Motors) is frequently held up as the model of modern turnaround leadership. What’s notable about her approach isn’t charisma or dramatic pivots but accountability, operational discipline, and a calm, inclusive approach that still demands strong performance.
Barra’s often been described as someone who changes culture by changing standards, not by making speeches.
Equally, Jane Fraser, who became Citi’s CEO in 2021, has built her reputation on tackling complexity in a sprawling institution. She leant into reducing layers, improving coherence and making a complex organization more governable. Her version of empathy in leadership is less about warmth and more about listening well, understanding context, and communicating difficult decisions in a way that respects the people on the receiving end.
Both women appear to represent a newer leadership model: less heroism, more repair. Less overt charisma, more systems and definitely more culture-focus, albeit not at the expense of performance but as a foundation for it.
What does this arc tell us?
Looking at this roughly chronological sweep, a thread emerges. Leadership thinking hasn’t just evolved, it’s been progressively pulled toward something more human.
From rational systems to energetic spectacle to personal values to evidence-based discipline, and now to something harder to name but easier to spot: the idea that the leader’s job is to create the conditions in which others can do their best work…even thrive.
And, as we’ve pointed out many times before, the neuroscience backs it. Research shows that when people engage together through shared creative experiences (something that activates emotion and memory simultaneously) the brain records those moments differently. It embeds lasting bonds and experiences that outlive the event itself.
At SongDivision, we’ve watched this play out for more than two decades. The leaders we work with aren’t looking for spectacle, although it might look that way to the uninformed. They’re looking for something that sticks, such as a shared memory, a shared identity, a sense of community and kinship and a reason to keep showing up for each other.
That’s what the best leadership thinking has always been pointing toward. The pathway is always evolving.
Who’s made an impact on your leadership style? Who warrants a place on our list? We’re curious to know.
