The Potential of Leadership: Differences between Mental Models of Leadership in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries

Abstract

The central aim of this chapter is to verify the extent to which the orientation of scientific research on the topic, leadership follows classical or contemporary approaches, according to analysis of the main databases of publications on the topic in the period 2014–2021, in English and Portuguese. A Focus Group with experts on leadership define 28 descriptors responsible for revealing the incidence and content of publications of different natures with academic, technical, technological or scientific orientations, whether classical or emerging. A quantitative approach followed, through bibliometric research, in which the descriptors were investigated in three selected prestigious databases and two non-prestigious ones. The main conclusions were: (i) the low scientific production and the need for more prestigious publications in Portuguese on the topics of leadership and management; (ii) recognition that the traditional mental model of the twentieth century was massively disseminated in explicit communications in English, in all databases, when compared to the contemporary mental model, with inverse behavior for publications in Portuguese, a phenomenon that has increased over the last few years, contrary to the research expectations.

1. Introduction

Significant issues on the topic of leadership, nowadays, involves consideration of aspects, such as: Does leadership involve a perception and new experiences as an increment, or does it promote a resignification of the human essence, as a transformation? The first issue involves the fruits reaped by the “digitization” or virtuality of customs, practices, effects and events, due to the intensified nature of the “new times”, including by the pandemic scenario itself. The second issue is based on the profound transformations and alterations in the way of designing, consuming, enjoying life, sharing and relating with one’s organization and with individuals from different layers of interaction. Can a leader remain apathetic and indifferent to current events, not share the social values ​​that have shaped the current way of perceiving, thinking and acting in this new scenario? Or even, on the other hand, assume a position as a social and organizational “foreigner”, barely sensitive to the ethos, scope of established behavior and set of values presented as an offer of a “new normal”? [1].

These reflections, via questions and fostering philosophical discussion, from [2, 3], the former, a contemporary author, and the latter, a classic author, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957, denounce that the concerns, urges and anxieties involving the “organizational man”, the leader, the director of meanings are preserved and arouse interest in a timeless way. Eighty years separate the two original works. However, the social discomfort and the unease of the possible lack of meanings seem to be present in this and that moment of our society, inviting the reader to reflect on such anxieties. In both, there is something in common: what future is expected, and who will be able to show a satisfactory way forward? Perhaps, for this reason, the theme of leadership arouses so much fascination in different social strata.

Leadership can be perceived in numerous, diverse environments, such as: schools, universities, trade unions, public institutions, associations, non-profit organizations, competitive companies and any other social organizations. This is the reason why the theme “is one of the most studied phenomena in the Social Sciences […], a topic of multidisciplinary interest and a rich field for study and research” [4 , p. 440]. Also, the topic captures the interest and attention of academics, market professionals, students at all levels, religious people, politicians, military personnel, managers, employees, communities, among others. However, it is not reasonable to believe that human knowledge, curiosity and relevance of the topic and its social function have been exhausted or lost due emphasis over the years. Above all, leadership, for about 150 years, has been a researched subject in the competitive organizational environment, in a perspective of what today is called market organizations. Also, it encompasses many possible definitions and focuses that are constantly changing, depending on the era in which they are situated. The interest in consuming material, instruction and training on this topic, in the form of tacit and/or explicit knowledge, at a personal and/or professional level, by society and/or organizations, can be found in works published in Brazil and abroad [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].

Since 1974, with successive studies and records in English, [11] has observed the ever-increasing amount of scientific publications on leadership matters. In his famous Leadership Handbook, until the edition published in 2008, there had been a little more than 12,000 studies [11]. In 2019, it was found that 12,235 scientific papers had been published in prestigious media, between 1923 and 2019, and, according to [9], these were solely in the Web of Science database. In contrast, in January 2022, in a preliminary analysis of the Google Scholar database, the term, leadership had 651,000 references. Meanwhile, the term was mentioned in 5,020,000 publications around the world (complete works in English or those in other languages, with titles, keywords and/or abstracts in English), showing that it was a subject of keen attention and interest. Noteworthy was that these past referral rates tripled in recurrence in the period, January 2021–January 2022.

As academic investigation, researchers have recently started to concentrate their studies, above all, on leadership contributions to management. No longer are there managerial aspects or competitive applications [12] focusing on behavioral analyses, leadership capacity or styles [13], or on leadership theories, as was the case until about the first decade of the 2000s. Therefore, the relationship between leadership and management seems to be one of the scientific aspects of greatest interest among the diverse combinations and research paths the topic may follow, when investigating the distinct nature of worldwide publications. Furthermore, this has proven to be a challenge among academics and researchers. Research and investigation decisions on the subject can become too comprehensive, if there is no proper direction, without directed applicability.

Throughout the twentieth century, as expected, the topic seems to have had specific contours of traditional approaches. Moreover, it attracted issues and emphases directed towards management, involving, above all, control, command, organization, efficiency and asset management. However, with the social, cultural and environmental changes at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the theme started to incorporate social issues, the environment, ecology, sustainability, social networks, technological developments, public policies directed towards inclusion, remote work, virtual interests, diversity, the current leadership dissemination strategies and cultural inclinations, more significantly, from the 2010s onwards. This involves raising awareness, remodeling, accepting and understanding new meanings, through factors external to the organization and satisfaction of social demands [14]. Moreover, this fact can be analyzed in terms of the evolution and projections on the topic, involving Brazilian and foreign behavior [7]. The provocation contained in the considerations of the latter scientific work and the stimulus for new complementary researches motivated the investigation of two analyses; (i) the availability of publications that present traditional or non-traditional approaches to leadership; and (ii) the comparison between publications on leadership in English and Portuguese, as an indication of a social phenomenon under construction.

There exists a consensus among researchers that organizations and society are changing. Therefore, the actors involved in the execution and dissemination of the theme are too. As a result, the mental model of people in society and organizations, such as managers and researchers, is subject to alteration. In fact, the culture within companies, the previously passive positioning of consumers, the community, the set of stakeholders, that is, the actors that will drive or inhibit the manifestation of leadership - all are in motion. Whether in support or rejection, leadership approaches tend to move in relation to the desires of the core interests that motivate organizations. This change occurs either as a social phenomenon (from the outside in), or as part of the process of construction or evolution of organizations in search of new meanings (from the inside out). Also, this construction or “deconstruction” has become the target of social discussion, of individuals who seek greater representation and opportunities to express their opinions, of anxieties in organizations, of scientific research in the academic environment, in short, it generates restlessness and anxieties in part of the society. In view of this, a research question can be formulated: Has the scientific, academic and social interest in this topic changed in communications or discussions, moving towards traditional (conservative) or contemporary (innovative) approaches? One way to investigate this phenomenon, to seek such an answer, may be through analysis of virtual publications, and these are forms of explicit communication of a part of society, representing various strata. These publications can have different natures: scientific, academic, technical, technological, which transit not only in academic and organizational environments, but also through less rigorous, and even informal, publications, such as magazine texts, blogs and research or social projects in virtual media.

In order to achieve the proposal described, it seemed to be an appropriate option to analyze the topic over the years 2014–2021, in several databases and repositories, with publications of different natures, in English and Portuguese. The relevance of the topic lies in the opportunity for clarification and verification of data that may allow Generation of information for future deepening and scope for discussion in an academic, organizational way. The main objective of the study was to verify whether the orientation of scientific research on the topic comes close to a traditional or contemporary approach, when analyzing the publications databases on the topic, 2014 and 2021, in English and Portuguese. Also, to achieve this objective, there was definition of the need for suggestion and validation of descriptors that would help to identify a current of thought with a mental model tending towards a more conservative or more innovative leadership behavior, by means of the expressions used in the publications. The secondary objective was to analyze the level of relevance and generate a classification between the databases of publications in English and Portuguese, comparing the research impact, by suggesting research descriptors for further investigation on the topic.

2. Classic and emerging mental models in leadership

The search for understanding the phenomenon of leadership and its collective meaning in organizational scenarios and social representations, for millennia only present in the field of philosophy, are far from being satisfied in literature, in society and in organizations. The topic arouses people’s interest because we naturally have needs and desires to be affiliated, or affiliate people with a common cause, with a collectivist objective. Even more so, we seek, as a society, individuals who point us in the right direction: a safe one that minimizes our anxieties, in a value proposition. Leadership involves the will to change our reality, looking for paths that we deem to be better for the future, in relation to the present [14]. Discussions involving studies already consolidated and based on leadership seem to involve the relationship with people, with the environment and with processes. Meanwhile, the perspectives, that is, future discussions, seem to involve current leadership practices, policies and action strategies [15, 16].

Apart from that, [7] identified that, in the twenty-first century, international studies on leadership have had an emphasis on affections and attitudes at work, focusing on the object of “individual” analysis. However, the evolution of leadership research in the twentieth century can be classified more generally and under the observation object, “organization”. This corroborates Camus’ anxieties [3], about the lack of meaning in an abstract future and in the “business”, not in specific aspects of the “organizational man” with his company, as incited at the beginning of the work. The anxieties present in the search for competences and in the concern with development find support in [2]; but it also ratifies the thesis presented in [7].

Moreover, [13] indicated that the study of leader behavior was a critical factor of interest in the composition of leadership theories. This is because the forms of behavior work as coordinated responses to achieve results and generate stimuli in followers. Additionally, this equation, “stimulus ‘x’ equals response ‘y’”, seems to have been effective in some part of the leader’s relationship with his employees, but the employees’ and other stakeholders’ mental model has changed over time [17]. The topic seems to have advanced recently to aspects involving innovation, disruption, robotics, nanotechnology, virtualization, leadership 4.0, among other factors. With this, inevitably, the demands on the figure of the leader and the theme have changed. However, some issues are still critical, recurrent and need attention, even with the passage of time, making conservative mental models and traditional issues coexist and dialog with contemporary mental models and innovative issues. For example, in the recent work by [18], it can be seen that, despite advances in the topic, seminal issues, such as gender prejudice and obstacles to professional advancement, are still at the forefront of discussion and concern of this ancient topic.

On the basis of this previous issue, recent studies have discussed vital issues of the topic, such as: how to promote sustainable industrialization [19]; challenges of digitizing organizational processes, increasing the use of digital communication and remote work by leaders [20]; the role of the leader in the implementation of Industry 4.0 [21]; the consideration of social, environmental and economic factors in a joint, integrative and sustainable way [22]; how leaders can use their social media to have greater power of influence in their activity spheres and to reduce the level of distrust in their communities [23]. This is what advances the contemporary perception of the theme’s evolution.

On the other hand, as explained above, centenary or millennial issues continue to attract society’s attention and reflect its anxieties. There is still a great deficit of positive results, and there are difficulties in establishing an effective leadership process that responds to the contemplation of many interests simultaneously [14], one that solves ethical and gender issues in top management/leadership [18], as well as stop emphasizing purely conservative interests with emphasis on management and managerial competencies [24]. These issues, even though treated and addressed since at least the Third Industrial Revolution [11], around 1950, have emerged as social concerns.

The leader’s performance as an organizational manager or with an interest in management still seems to be fragmented, according to the perception of [15], and can evolve to more innovative vision and action, with a greater interface and contribution to the new demands of society. Many scientific works, albeit published in prestigious media, seem to reflect a traditional perception of the topic, even in the face of so many changes, urgencies, social, cultural and organizational pressures.

Additionally, [10] points out that traditional approaches have a classic view of leadership, but the contemporary view involves contingency aspects of the organization. What can be observed in leadership with an emphasis on management, in a preliminary form, is a dichotomy between: (i) mental models built around a vision and a way of thinking with distinct cuts in focus of analysis in the organization, in command, in the control and in the direction of efficiency – the most prevalent model in the way of perceiving leadership in the twentieth century (traditional view); or (ii) a mental model focused on the analysis of the individual and his idiosyncrasies, in the formation of strategies, partnerships, inclusion of stakeholders, diversity, tolerance, participation in collective constructions – a more frequent model of perceiving in the twenty-first century, with a look at the present and, above all, leadership for the future (contemporary vision). And these works seem to use their own vocabulary, among their keywords and those most recurrent in their texts.

Some of the most contemporary ways of investigating, studying and discussing the topic applied to highly competitive companies, those in which there is the greatest opportunity for learning and faster organizational changes, involve: (i) discussing career projections and guidelines in management [25]; (ii) recognizing and developing leadership in a changing scenario, which encompasses the anxieties of customers and communities, especially niche, representative ones with great media expression [17], (iii) recording the perception of career success of high-performance managers, based on their efforts related to the social context, not specifically to the organization [26]; (iv) relating the leadership phenomenon to the effects and opportunities in current social media [27]; (v) managing diversity and prioritizing inclusion in organizations [28]; (vi) considering the impact of virtual teams on the organization’s integration and planning [29]; (vii) preparing leaders and the organization for a VUCA world [30]; and (viii) developing the bidirectional relationship between strategic leadership and technological innovation [31]. These issues that traditional approaches did not include, encompass or were exposed to, as they did not require a relationship of leadership with technological advances, with communities, with the highest level of education, culture, questioning and representativeness of communities, through new values. Were ​​demanded “from outside to inside” organizations.

How, since the beginning of the twenty-first century, have different levels of interaction begun to gain dimensions of change and reassignment of meanings, with a contemporary way of treating, establishing and disseminating leadership? Certain meanings have been reprogrammed and started to have new drivers, from the new forms of conviviality and relationships; in personal and professional bonds; in the acceptance of diversity; in the relevance given to communities; on the impact of public opinion through virtual demonstrations; in the perceptions and in the new visions about the objects of observation, “organization” and “leader”; in the new beliefs about the figure of the leader and about his power to act; in the concentration of influence previously centered on a few figures, now pulverized among many actors disseminating leadership. They are new models of influence and leadership with which a traditional approach no longer has correspondence or validity in people’s minds. These bivial contradictions between the traditional view of leadership and the contemporary are more portrayed in actions that aim, on the one hand, to Manage – control, monitor, inspect and direct assets, focusing on the perception of the organization as a driver of influence, for the twentieth century, and the set of meanings that these actions or communications attract. On the other hand, actions aimed at Leading – guiding, inspiring and promoting meaning and feeling, focusing on the perception of the organization as reactive, flexible and adaptable to external influence, for the twenty-first century, with its own set of meanings and representations [17].

According to [32], organizational management and business leadership are organizational positions and roles that have distinct functions and demands. Management in an organization is the development of a management system guided by the establishment of competences for the exercise of functions, the execution of activities, the accomplishment of tasks and the conscious use of resources and assets. Its main objective is to enhance the return expected by the employer and minimize: losses of capital, time and energy; waste; motivation of any nature that may adversely affect the institution’s competitiveness and the meeting of pre-defined objectives by the strategic leadership. Therefore, it is a matter of efficiency and relationship with short- and medium-term tasks, a way to generate alignment among their performance levels, generally tactical and operational, and the strategic level [15], acting as a kind of link between these levels [24]. Also, it is related to concentrating, manipulating, controlling and organizing resources first, then people. In the exercise of management, even in the middle of the twenty-first century, a managerial behavior can be noticed with emphasis on punctuality and with internal organizational goals, in a pragmatic view of the organization and people – a kind of conservative management.

For [17 , p. 27], the meaning of managing is “using the least possible resource (people, time, capital, machinery, etc.) to obtain the maximum expected result, reaching extraordinary levels of production and return, and at the same time, a pleasant level of employee satisfaction.” This management system is shaped by the uncertainties and instabilities of organizational and social demands, generally limited to one sector. Environments with an emphasis on management, skills, styles and specific competences, especially if idealized by employers, can be more competitive than solidary [18], reminiscent of the way of competing, essentially from the twentieth century. Managers work efficiently in previously structured environments, but may have difficulty establishing themselves in environments that change frequently or are more unstable [32].

In contrast, it is up to the organizational position as leader to disseminate the leadership, but not solely dependent on it to be sustainable. In an organization, leadership should provide stakeholders with varied experiences and challenges, as well as being a reference and offering rewards to those being led [33]. Leadership must be able to break structures, mobilize and inspire people, share a vision of the future, generate credibility in abstract environments, among other functions that are not expected in a position or in the execution of management. In this sense, exercising leadership moves away from the function of exercising management. Thus, management has a more focused approach to inanimate assets and to a way of directing people and processes to efficiency, to intermediate activities. Although some leadership practices and skills are clearly visible, and more complex issues of leadership have been advanced, simpler issues still seem to generate disagreement and debate among researchers [7].

One example is the lack of a widely accepted concept to generate an objective, satisfactory definition of the term leadership. Even after so many years of intensive studies on the subject, there is no consensus on a final concept to express the leadership phenomenon, due to the great diversity of approaches. For this work, the concept presented in [17 p. 33] seems to summarize the research objectives and to be a guide to the vision more linked to the highlighted contemporary approach: “leadership is the interpersonal phenomenon of exerting influence, under collaborative guidance, through a communication process, to achieve specific shared objectives, these being continuous, universal and timeless actions, structured in the sharing of a vision of the future and values ​​revalidated by a group”.

This concept finds refuge, at least partially, in the understanding of other current and contemporary authors, such as [34], who observed the importance of the leader, within an organizational and social vision, to involve employees in a welcoming environment with instruction, and also in [28], who highlighted communication as an important value for team performance, in [22], who highlighted interrelationship and the long term as essential to sustain leadership positions, as well as in [35], who highlighted the importance of the leader promoting experiences among team members, sharing perspectives. Finally, there was [7], who advocated a more comprehensive form of leadership, focusing not only on the leader.

The contemporary vision of leadership includes an inclusive, pluralistic perception, revalidating anxieties of humanization, coexistence and changes in mentality, which value diversity, innovation and the creation of ethical and egalitarian organizational spaces [18], for new generations of individuals and organizations [21] - a kind of renovation management. Leadership is most noticed (or appreciated) in times of internal or external crisis, changing scenarios and external pressures on the organization. Generally, in these moments, other people cannot perceive a solution, are not able to see priorities or opportunities. The individual who occupies a leadership position will have to contribute to rethinking his organization, combining the current challenges of interacting in a volatile, globalized, hyperconnected era, which are contemporary demands.

The traditional way of approaching, analyzing and investigating the topic, according to [6, 8, 17, 27, 36, 37, 38], despite not excluding, reduces the intensity and subtracts the qualitative understanding of the leadership phenomenon in a changing society. The scale of this and the fact that it is defended by well-established, emblematic authors on the themes of leadership and management, can obscure the relevance of new angles for research, investigation and publication. With this, the contemporary forms of diffusion and social penetration of the theme can be obscured or belittled. Presenting a counterpoint, there is a theoretical current that argues that new approaches or new views on leadership are ways of self-replicating old theories [10]. Is this the reality?

3. Method

This study is part of a research project on Leadership, Management and Professional Perspectives, which presents a specific part of the application of the theme, with due limitations of space, representativeness of defined interests and, mainly, commitment to the question of the research, and with the proposed objectives. Therefore, inevitably, some aspects and considerations were not addressed. The general objective of the project is to develop knowledge, investigations, data, information, knowledge, debates, research trails, interface with university extension and publications on the topic.

The issue present in [7], namely, to better analyze the dissemination of research on leadership, in English and Portuguese, in addition to traditional or non-traditional approaches and views on the subject, was accepted. For this reason, research procedures and techniques were selected and designed in two distinct phases to achieve its objectives, as the scope of the research.

Phase 1, with a qualitative approach, aimed at understanding a set of meanings, motives and aspirations, which corresponds to a deeper space for processes and phenomena [39] and involved a Focus Group meeting. This was scheduled and realized with eight members, henceforth designated as specialists on the topic: four research professors and four managers of large competitive companies in the secondary economic sector. The university researchers and the companies are located in Rio de Janeiro State. The meeting was virtual, in March 2020, sponsored by the research group of which the researchers are members. The criteria utilized for the participation of the guests were: academic or professional experience of 10 or more years in their respective area; postgraduation and possessing theoretical or practical involvement with the topic. The average age of the group was 37. There were seven male participants and one female. The selection by the Focus Group technique was due to the need to deepen the analysis and interaction in a work group, seeking to have mutual influence on the understanding of a phenomenon and definition of propositions. The group showed homogeneity among the participants regarding the interests and purposes of the research, thus fulfilling the premises of the technique. The results were discussed, transcribed and analyzed qualitatively [40]. At the focus group meeting there were discussions on: (i) the presentations and evolution of the topic in the organizational and academic environments; (ii) the speculated and suggested traditional leadership mental model and the contemporary leadership mental model; and (iii) the validation of the descriptors used for the bibliographic survey, the analysis of secondary research on the topic, and the quantitative phase supply.

The descriptors were first suggested in English. Fourteen of them met the conditions established as markers for the research. These were defined after the third round of suggestions, systematization and validation, meeting the following requirements: after being suggested, having been accepted by three or more specialists and elimination of distortions or possible synonyms, after final verification by the group. The option for the suggestion of terms in English was due to: (i) the literature on Administration and Business, a topic that concentrates most publications on leadership, being essentially in English or translated from it; (ii) the fact that, in academia or competitive market organizations, much of the jargon and many expressions are commonly used in English; and, finally, (iii) the experts consulted to consume academic and/or scientific material in English, with familiarity with the main international authors on the subject. After the final definition of the quantity and category of descriptors in English, they were translated into Portuguese, the total being 28. There was consensus among the experts on the conclusion that these terms or expressions are present with remarkable recurrence in titles, keywords and abstracts of scientific articles, in books and book chapters, in projects, dissertations, theses, etc., and also in large organizations.

The descriptors defined after the rounds of discussion among the experts can be seen in Table 1. They are almost the same in English and Portuguese.

	Descriptors that guide Phase 2 of the method
	Traditional mental model	Contemporary mental model
In English	Management, Managerial Leadership, Leadership Styles, Leadership Capabilities, Business Leadership, Business Leader, Leadership Theories	Leader, Leadership, Leadership Behavior, Leadership Skills, Coach Leader, Leadership Development, Strategic Leadership
In Portuguese	Management, Management Leadership, Leadership Styles, Leadership Capabilities, Business Leadership, Business Leader, Leadership Theories	Leader, Leadership, Leader Behavior, Leadership Competencies, Leader Coach, Leadership Development, Strategic Leadership

Table 1.

Descriptors validated by experts on leadership after the Focus Group.

Source: Research data.

Another concern established as a guideline and agenda for the group of experts was to determine, among the selected descriptors, which was related to practices and the traditional approach to leadership, and also, which ones were more related to the practices and contemporary approach to leadership, dividing them into two blocks of seven descriptors per language. The objective was to obtain the decoded meaning of the descriptors, their possible impacts on their corresponding research and concept circulation platforms. After extensive discussion and qualitative analysis, the experts deliberated, as can be seen in Table 1. This step generated some more profound discussions about the possibility or not of a corresponding taxonomy with a chance of success for such a dichotomous division, and this led to some division among the participants. However, by majority vote, the final list could be announced. It was assumed that the traditional mental model contained terms and expressions linked to publications with more conservative views, approaches, concepts and organizational applications (regardless of the “age” of the publication), which portray management anxieties and concerns already consolidated in society and in companies. Whereas the contemporary mental model contains terms and expressions linked to publications with more innovative or current organizational visions, approaches, concepts and applications, which portray anxieties and management concerns that are already pressing, urgent and socially and culturally latent, in society and in companies. For example, the recent work on leadership and management by [24, 25] deal, respectively, with management and representation of women in leadership positions. Despite their great scientific contribution to their areas and the authors’ admiration, in fact, they present themselves as approaches that focus on traditional questions about leadership, without contemporary discussions or emphasis on innovations, at least due to the perception of the diversity of subjects on the theme.

In the final part of the focus group discussions, it was decided that some more recent expressions or terms, certainly present in more contemporary literature, would not be included, as: (i) they do not meet the requirements established for qualitative research; (ii) they are not fully known by all Focus Group members; (iii) at the end of the meeting, it was believed that they would not generate a significant difference between the dichotomous comparison of the proposed mental models, as they were not associated and disseminated in scientific and academic literature, at least not with high recurrence, in the last two quadrenniums of assessment. Therefore, they might not appear in publications 7–8 years old, for example, which would make the proposed comparison unfeasible.

Having defined the 28 descriptors, the authors started Phase 2, quantitative, with bibliometric research, in which parameters of diffusion, propagation and use in publications of the descriptors were investigated. The selection of the bibliometric research technique seemed appropriate, as it was seen as aiding the understanding and application of new themes, to identify future trends, with high frequency in Applied Social Sciences [41]. The dissemination of these descriptors can be noticed in publications indexed in the main research bases and repositories of scientific, academic, technological and technical publications, among others. The Web of Science, Scopus, Scielo, Portal Periódicos Capes and Google Scholar databases were previously defined, after an indication of secondary research analysis [12]. This research, directed to 25 professors/researchers from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, pointed to such databases as the main repositories of publications in Applied Social Sciences, for the analysis of research, publications and investigations of different natures.

Subsequently, a qualification among the five bases was established: Web of Science (main collection), Scopus and Scielo as the main repositories of prestigious media, at least in Applied Social Sciences, the concentration of the authors’ study and research areas. Furthermore, the bases, Periódicos Capes (main search) and Google Scholar as broader repositories, were visited. Individual bibliometric searches were carried out by language, by time frame and by database. Bibliometric Research is a quantitative and statistical technique that allows the identification of various patterns in the production of knowledge, such as: the number of publications, indication of dissemination media, most cited or most productive authors, the research elite, and geographic origin [42]. For this research, only the number of publications and qualification of the dissemination media were used. Indeed, they sufficed to achieve the proposed objectives. The other bibliometric analyses and clippings may be used in other future studies.

It was expected, with the bibliometric research carried out, to analyze: (i) the collective flow of interest of researchers on the topic, through all the publications in the selected languages; (ii) if there were changes in the interest of the research topics in the 8 years, two quadrenniums, comprised of the temporal cut, at national and international levels, in traditional and contemporary approaches, from the descriptors raised in the Focus Group meetings; (iii) to verify the impact of the volume of publications, in an essentially quantitative view, in the investigated databases and repositories; and, additionally, (iv) point out a way for new researchers or organizational managers on the relevance of descriptors and future research in English and Portuguese on leadership and its mental models. Quantitative analyses were performed in January 2022.

In this work, the databases were divided into two sets: prestigious and non-prestigious. It should be noted that calling bases non-prestigious in this work does not have any pejorative nature. Only one expression was used in opposition to the first set and because it contains several documents that do not require peer review or scientific rigor for publication. However, at least in the corridors of the academia, there is an understanding that some databases can be classified as prestigious and non-prestigious according to the type of indexed publication.

4. Findings

Regarding the databases utilized in the research, the prestigious ones encompass, above all, full articles, peer-reviewed and published in journals with high national Qualis/Capes ratings and a significant impact factor. In these databases, it is possible to obtain results only from complete, final works (according to the search filters established by the researcher), published in scientific journals, which, in order to be indexed in one of them, must meet strict requirements. Therefore, the journals contained in these repositories are among the so-called prestigious ones (upper strata of the Qualis/Capes classification). The selected prestigious databases (called Set A in the research) were: Web of Science (Clarivate, main collection), Scopus and Scielo. In addition to access to the quantity and exposure of published works, there is also an option for qualitative analysis, by classifying journals’ filters, by journal name, ISSN, area of ​​concentration of knowledge or relevance of contribution to the area or to society. However, this was not a research option, due to the generalist and comprehensive nature established in the research question.

The so-called non-prestige databases (Set B), on the other hand, do not allow the application of significant search filters. In addition, they attract, without qualification, all virtual written media published in various databases and repositories, public and/or private, that are connected to the large network. As interesting characteristics, they have: (i) greater dynamism in publications; and (ii) a faster interface with the social and intellectual aspirations of young and senior researchers and/or students, presenting a broader range of media, low entry barrier and little bureaucracy for publication. From a certain point of view, they feature greater volume and less “quality”, despite their subjectivist character. In addition to holding complete, final papers from journals, the following documents are also contained in its repositories: technical papers, technological papers, editorial materials, conference articles, abstracts of conference articles, expanded abstracts, blogs, texts from magazines, proofs and evaluations, history of research projects, description of groups and lines of research, summary of meetings, letters, retractions, conference documents, analytical documents, book chapters, books, observation documents, TCCs, master’s dissertations, doctorate theses, short research, errata and corrections, all of these with expressions used as descriptors chosen in the qualitative phase of the research. The non-prestigious databases selected were: Portal de Periódicos Capes (main search) and Google Scholar.

As research operationalization, the 28 descriptors were analyzed in all five bases, first in English, then in Portuguese, in the two proposed time frames. The procedure was strictly followed, totaling 280 different research activities. In the prestigious databases, the search was performed by article title, abstract and keywords. In the non-prestigious ones, in the case of works in English, the search command was set to “any language”, and, later, to “search pages in Portuguese”.

After relating the qualitative research to the quantitative, the results of the bibliometric research in each database were analyzed, and considerations were made on the topic, especially, with an emphasis on management, since the terms selected in the qualitative phase oppose, the idea management (with its set of meanings) and leadership (with its set of meanings) in particular, a view supported by [9, 28, 30, 32].

In the stage of data analysis and organization, it was noted that only 7 of the 14 descriptors of each language had significant recurrence, regardless of the base analyzed. Due to its low significance, due to the low incidence, the results between the 8th and 14th descriptors were grouped and presented only as a block of expressions, serving to compare the relative results as percentages. The analyses, as proposed by the study, were recorded in the last 8 years of research activity, expressed through publications—explicit research communications and social discussion.

The two-time frames established for comparing the evolution of publications were the following 4-year periods: January 1, 2014–December 31, 2017 and January 1, 2018–December 31, 2021. In order to verify a possible change in the mental model of evolutionary leadership over the years and its future trends, it was also possible to analyze the annual historical series (by set of bases and by language), specified by more conservative or innovative terms. The data were collected in January, 2022.

The tables were created according to the criterion of ordering from the highest to lowest recurrence of descriptors, when adding up all incidences in the five databases investigated. Tables 2 and 3 display the results of the research findings with descriptors in English, in the two 4-year clippings proposed.

Terms researched by order of recurrence	Temporal cut 2014–2017
	Web of Science	Scopus	Scielo	Capes	Google Scholar	Total	Percentage
Management*	587,358	513,288	13,718	2,021,544	1,150,000	4,285,908	57.64%
Leadership	30,673	28,754	1009	71,647	1,250,000	1,382,083	21.35%
Leader	25,803	27,957	1114	332,194	1,200,000	1,587,068	18.59%
Leadership development	615	1064	20	8396	37,000	47,095	0.63%
Leadership skills	358	661	17	8290	30,700	40,026	0.54%
Leadership styles*	336	1178	33	8603	26,000	36,150	0.49%
Leadership behavior	211	602	3	3683	16,200	20,699	0.28%
The seven main descriptors	645,354	573,504	15,914	2,454,357	3,709,900	7,399,029	99.52%
	294	789	6	3383	31,586	36,058	0.48%
Total 14 descriptors	645,648	574,293	15,920	2,457,740	3,741,486	7,435,087	100.0%
By set of bases	A: 1,235,861 (16.62%)			B: 6,199,266 (83.38%)

Table 2.

Bibliometric research 2014–2017.

Source: Research data.

*Descriptors related to the perception of the mental model of leadership in the twentieth century.

Terms researched by order of recurrence	Temporal cut 2018–2021
	Web of Science	Scopus	Scielo	Capes	Google Scholar	Total	Percentage
Management*	1,012,767	697,900	14,546	2,179,354	970,000	4,874,567	73.43%
Leadership	51,795	42,840	1110	333,790	435,000	864,535	13.02%
Leader	61,056	43,247	1154	75,062	536,000	716,519	10.79%
Leadership styles*	768	973	19	8314	32,900	42,974	0.65%
Leadership development	916	2077	45	11,239	21,700	35,977	0.54%
Leadership skills	1233	1333	15	8067	23,300	33,948	0.51%
Leadership behavior	402	1024	6	4998	17,200	23,630	0.6%
The seven main descriptors	1,128,937	789,394	16,895	2,620,824	2,036,100	6,592,150	99.30%
The seven remaining descriptors	314	916	8	5059	39,944	46,241	0.70%
Total 14 descriptors	1,129,251	790,310	16,903	2,625,883	2,076,044	6,638,391	100.0%
By set of bases	A: 1,936,464 (29.17%)			B: 4,701,927 (70.83%)

Table 3.

Bibliometric research 2018–2021.

Source: Research data.

*Descriptors related to the perception of the mental model of leadership in the twentieth century.

In sequence, Table 3, containing the 2018–2021 results.

The comparative analysis of Tables 2 and 3, for both 4-year periods in English on the proposed theme, showed that:

1. One in six leadership publications in English occurred in the prestigious database set (16.62%) 2014–2017. While three out of 10 publications (29.17%) were registered 2018–2021. In other words, an increase in the quality of leadership research cannot be proven (again, as it is not the target of this research); At least there is a record of a significant increase in the number of prestigious publications (700,000 more publications, when comparing both quadrenniums) and in the percentage share (about 13%) of the total results. On the other hand, the comparison showed a decrease of 24.16% in the number of publications in Set B.

2. The secondary block of descriptors in English, which presented a frequency level of only 0.48%, 2014–2017 and 0.70%, 2018–2021, involved the following terms: Managerial Leadership, Leadership Capabilities, Business Leadership, Business Leader, Leadership Theories (from the suggested traditional mental model); and Strategic Leadership, Coach Leader (from the suggested contemporary mental model).

3. The secondary block in the Google Scholar database was more significant, followed by the Capes database, in both time frames, which, in the researchers’ view, indicated low interest in complete published works (Set A) using these terms.

4. The seven main descriptors, primary block, had a recurrence of 99.52% in the 2014–2017 period and 99.30% in the 2018–2021, considering all the published works, showing that there had been no variation throughout the past 8 years in the research interests of leadership researchers. First, this was due to the observation that there was no significant change in the degree of interest in publishing this block in English (slight change in the positioning of the descriptors: Leadership Styles, Leadership Development and Leadership Skills), as they were similar in their relative positions. Moreover, there was only a tiny relative change in the intensity of interest as a block, with a negative variation of −0.22%. Irrespective of the time frame, the primary block attracted more than 99% of publications.

5. Among the prestigious databases, when analyzing Table 3, the Web of Science is the current main repository for research on the topic, in English, and the Capes base, the main one among the non-prestigious.

6. The first three descriptors ordered correspond to 97.58% and 97.24%, respectively, in Quadrenniums 1 and 2, showing that there was no change of interest in the publications and explicit discussions of the researchers, for their investigation targets and analysis. There is an emphasis on the descriptor, Management, which, when present, attracts in a research/publication a way of thinking, perceiving and developing leadership with a traditional view, involving control, command, management directed towards efficiency, etc. This descriptor alone corresponded to 57.64% and 73.43%, respectively, of the interests of the publications in Quadrenniums 1 and 2. More than being in first position in both temporal orders, it occupies, on average, 65, 54% of the research interests among all 14 descriptors in English, a growth in interest of 27.39%, when all the bases and both time frames are added together. In Quadrennium 1, this descriptor was present in 90.17% of publications in Set A, and 51.16% of those in Set B. In Quadrennium 2, this descriptor was present in 89.09% of publications in Set A, and 66.98% of those in Set B. These data show that there was no percentage change in interest in this descriptor among researchers, in the prestigious bases, which had been expected by the authors. However, there was a significant increase in publications using this descriptor in the non-prestigious databases, which surprised the authors. Even approaching the most recent social and cultural demands, English-speaking researchers seem to be interested in publications and discussions that are more traditional than contemporary, in the last 8 years, confirmed by the analysis refined annually.

7. On the other hand, there was a decrease in interest in the Leadership descriptor, with a negative variation of −37.45% in the total of published works, driven by the strong lack of interest in publications in non-prestigious databases, despite an increase in prestigious databases, when comparing the temporal evolutions of the quadrenniums studied. The same behavior is present in the Leader descriptor, with a negative variation of −54.85% in the total of published works, in the same period, this data corroborating the consideration presented in the previous item.

8. When analyzing the primary block, the classification of descriptors by the traditional mental model (marked by an asterisk in the tables) presents the descriptors, Management and Leadership Styles as representative. These, in Quadrennium 1, correspond to 58.13% of the researchers’ interests when all the databases are added together, and 90.29% in the prestigious bases. Respectively, in Quadrennium 2, they correspond to 74.08% and 89.18%. These data seem to suggest that there was no change of interest among consolidated and senior researchers, in addition to advanced stricto sensu postgraduate students (main contributors to the work in the Set A bases), over the two quadrenniums, from the perspective of the massive attention given to the traditional way of approaching and investigating the topic, at least from a management perspective, based on the dichotomous view proposed in this work.

9. The decrease in the absolute number of publications, a negative variation of −10.7%, may be an effect of the pandemic, which, perhaps, has hindered initiatives for investigations, analyses, submissions and publications, driven by the fall in the registration of publications in the non-prestigious bases, which tend to feel the effects of this variable more in the short term. Therefore, works registered in prestigious databases may have received their submissions in more remote periods, in some cases, with a gap of 12–48 months between submission and publication. The same behavior was observed in the analyses in Portuguese.

Tables 4 and 5 display the results of the research findings with descriptors in Portuguese, in the two proposed 4-year clippings.

Terms researched by order of recurrence	Temporal cut 2014–2017
	Web of Science	Scopus	Scielo	Capes	Google Scholar	Total	Percentage
Leadership	44	105	468	7.280	62.000	69.897	39.40%
Leader	552	37	224	15,895	37,600	54,308	30.61%
Management*	4	62	302	5369	40,400	46,137	26.01%
Business leader*	0	7	12	244	3150	3413	1.92%
Leadership styles*	0	1	2	37	1070	1110	0.63%
Leadership development	0	0	1	60	718	779	0.44%
Leadership competency	0	0	0	72	182	254	0.14%
The seven main descriptors	600	212	1009	28,957	145,120	175,898	99.15%
The seven remaining descriptors	0	2	6	14	1480	1502	0.85%
Total 14 descriptors	600	214	1015	28,971	146,600	177,400	100.0%
By set of bases	A: 1829 (1.03%)			B: 175,571 (98.87%)

Table 4.

Bibliometric research 2014–2017.

Source: Research data.

*Descriptors related to the perception of the mental model of leadership in the twentieth century.

Terms researched by order of recurrence	Temporal cut 2018–2021
	Web of Science	Scopus	Scielo	Capes	Google Scholar	Total	Percentage
Leader	1025	77	223	15,498	23,700	40,523	34.43%
Leadership	84	134	626	6273	27,700	34,817	29.58%
Management*	6	80	392	5225	29,100	34,803	29.57%
Business leader*	0	3	16	228	3020	3267	2.78%
Leadership styles*	0	1	1	23	1070	1095	0.93%
Leadership development	0	1	2	54	799	856	0.73%
Leadership competency	0	0	0	78	200	278	0.24%
The seven main descriptors	1115	296	1260	27,379	85,589	115,639	98.25%
The seven remaining descriptors	0	1	6	28	2023	2058	1.75%
Total 14 descriptors	1115	297	1266	27,407	87,612	117,697	100.00%
By set of bases	A: 2678 (2.28%)			B: 115,019 (97.72%)

Table 5.

Bibliometric research 2018–2021.

Source: Research data.

*Descriptors related to the perception of the mental model of leadership in the twentieth century.

In sequence, Table 5, containing the 2018–2021 results.

The comparative analysis of Tables 4 and 5, for the two 4-year periods in Portuguese on the proposed theme, showed that:

1. One in every 100 publications on leadership, in Portuguese, occurred in the set of prestigious databases (1.03%) 2014–2017. Meanwhile, two out of 100 publications (2.28%) were registered 2018–2021. In other words, the number of publications in prestigious leadership databases was minimal when compared to the number of publications in the non-prestigious. The comparison between the 4-year periods showed an absolute increase of only 849 works in prestigious media. Also, there was an absolute decrease of 60,552 publications from Set B, which corresponded to a negative variation of −34.59%.

2. When comparing the absolute numbers of publications in Portuguese and English, a huge distance could be seen in absolute numbers and in global indicators. In the last 8 years, 3,172,325 were published in English in prestigious databases and 10,901,193 in non-prestigious ones. In Portuguese, respectively, there were: 4507 and 290,590 publications. In other words, publications in Portuguese represented 0.14% of the universe of prestigious publications and 2.67% of non-prestigious ones, among all the works published in English.

3. The secondary block of descriptors in Portuguese, which represented only 0.85%, 2014–2017 and 1.75%, 2018–2021, involved the following terms: Managerial Leadership, Leadership Capabilities, Business Leadership, Theories of Leadership (from the suggested traditional mental model); and Behavior of the Leader, Coach Leader, Strategic Leadership (from the suggested contemporary mental model). The secondary block was significant only in the Google Scholar database, in both quadrenniums. In comparison with the composition of the primary block in English, the only differences were the entry of the Business Leader descriptor, to the detriment of Leadership Behavior, among the seven main descriptors. The publications in English had two representatives of the traditional mental model, whereas, in Portuguese, there were three.

4. The primary block had a recurrence of 99.15% in Quadrennium 1 and 98.25% in Quadrennium 2, among all the published works, showing that there had been no variation, over the last 8 years, in the respective research interests, in Portuguese. Similar to the analysis in English, there was a minimal alteration in the ordering of interest in publication in this block, with the descriptor, Leader alternating with the position of the descriptor, Leadership in first place, in the comparison between the quadrenniums.

5. Among the prestigious databases, when analyzing Table 5, Scielo was currently the database with the largest number of recent works, closely followed by Web of Science, as the main repositories for research on the topic, in Portuguese. Moreover, the Google Scholar database was the main one among the non-prestigious.

6. The first three descriptors ordered corresponded to 96.02% and 93.58%, respectively, in Quadrenniums 1 and 2, showing that there was no significant change of interest in the publications and explicit discussions of the researchers regarding their investigation targets and analyses. In addition, these were the same three descriptors that were massively present in research involving English. However, there was an interesting inversion of relative positions in the scientific research. In Quadrennium 1, Management corresponded to 57.64% of the publications and, together, the terms Leadership and Leader, to 39.94%. Furthermore, in Quadrennium 2, Management corresponded to 73.43% of the publications and, together, the terms Leadership and Leader, to 23.81%. On the other hand, in surveys in Portuguese, in Quadrennium 1, Management occupied third position with 26.01% of interests in publication. Meanwhile, Leadership and Leader, together, had a 70.01% participation. However, in Quadrennium 2, Management reached 29.57%, and Leadership and Leader together, 64.01%, which could generate the consideration that there is a set of traditional meanings for research in English and contemporary ones for Portuguese.

7. Among the prestigious bases, Management corresponded to 17.85% of the publications, and the set of descriptors representing the traditional mental model in the first block (Management, Business Leader, Leadership Styles), 18.63%, in Quadrennium 1. In the same period, Leadership and Leader corresponded to 80.99% of the publications, and the set of descriptors representing the contemporary mental model, 81.11%. This behavior differed significantly from the analysis in English.

8. In Quadrennium 2, the Google Scholar base had almost three times more publications than the Capes base. This showed that, in addition to the little prestigious production in Portuguese, in relative (but also absolute) terms, there were few master’s dissertations, doctoral theses, technical reports, technological productions, editorials, among other documents in recent circulation on the theme. Leadership in the academic world. The Google Scholar database alone had 33 times the number of publications among those registered in the prestigious databases, all added together. In comparison, when performing the same analysis for Quadrennium 1, the Google Scholar database had 5 times more publications than the Capes database, and 80 times the amount of works among those registered in the prestigious databases added together. In other words, the lack of interest in publishing and researching the topic more profoundly, in stricto sensu postgraduate environments, could not be attributed to a temporary, fleeting phenomenon. It was a phenomenon that had been present in Portuguese for at least 8 years in the academic scenario, despite appearing to be a topic of interest to society in general. This huge distance does not currently occur in English, which presents the following indicators: Google Scholar base 7.21% positive variation in relation to the prestigious bases added together, in Quadrennium 2.

9. In Portuguese, there was a decrease in the absolute number of publications, with a negative variation of −33.65%, as also observed in publications in English, when comparing both quadrenniums. However, there was an increase in the number of prestigious publications and a decrease in the number of works deposited in the Capes database.

To provide greater clarity in the comparison of recurrence by native language of the publications, involving the proposed Sets A and B, Table 6 presents the percentages of records on the three main descriptors, responsible for about 99% of the publications in English and Portuguese, when all 8 years of the survey are added together.

Main terms researched, recurrent by language			Temporal cut 2014–2021
			Prestigious bases		Non-prestigious bases		Total
			English	Portuguese	English	Portuguese	English	Portuguese
1	Management	Leader	20.18%	0.72%	44.91%	31.41%	65.09%	32.14%
2	Leader	Leadership	1.14%	0.50%	15.23%	34.99%	16.37%	35.49%
3	Leadership	Management	1.11%	0.29%	14.85%	27.14%	15.96%	27.43%

Table 6.

Percentage comparisons on the most recurrent descriptors, in English and Portuguese.

Source: Research data.

In English, to start research on the topic, with an emphasis on management, a possible way would be to begin by researching the term, Management in prestigious bases, because, due to its high recurrence, research involving the terms, Leader and Leadership should also contain this term, due to its wide dispersion in all prestigious databases. Also, it is a term included in frank discussions and developments on the topic, since it appears about three times more than the other main descriptors, in non-prestigious databases. Investigations and scientific discussions on leadership with an emphasis on management, in English, explicitly, have a traditional approach to the theme, due to wide dissemination and use of elements involving management, control and command. It is noticeable there is an incidence of about 20 times more for the use of the Management descriptor in prestigious bases, in relation to the second and third places.

In Portuguese, via research in prestigious databases, one encounters the term, Leader with greater frequency and dissemination, with almost 45% more recurrence than the term, Leadership, and three times more than Management. In non-prestigious media, the relationship among the terms is close, with emphasis on the term, Leadership, which advances in society, in explicit documents without obligation of scientific rigor, as the main descriptor found in the publications. In Portuguese, the contemporary mental model of leadership seems to be more present in prestigious and non-prestigious media than the traditional model.

5. Discussion and conclusion

Society needs leaders and leadership to help point out paths and meanings for changing environments, along with some profile of digression or digression. Researchers, in general, are among the contemporary pioneers who help to signal paths at moments of indecision and imprecision. The contents, knowledge and insights that circulate in tacit and explicit communications fulfill these roles. The purpose of this work was to analyze the explicit virtual communications, which, for this Group, are usually found (or accepted by the community) in prestigious databases, but not only.

The analysis of the evolution of the leadership theme and the projection of new scenarios help in the construction of new dilemmas, organizational and social solutions.

Being a leader involves attributing meaning to people and organizations, being able to communicate a purpose, directing efforts and resources to achieve significant results. Therefore, it is relevant to study the phenomenon of leadership in organizations and in society. This definition departs from the role and expectations of a “manager”, a figure from whom other organizational relationships are expected. Such semantic and practical understanding, based mainly on vast international literature, as a dichotomous relationship more typical of the twenty-first century, has allowed leadership specialists, at the Focus Group meeting, to speculate on certain concepts linked to the traditional or conservative mental model in relation to the most innovative and contemporary. This theoretical basis has made it possible to generate inferences about the statistical results analyzed, mainly in the databases and repositories of publications, with which the authors are familiar, bearing academic and organizational applications.

Regarding the research question generated as a guide for the work, from this study it can be concluded that, according to the list of descriptors proposed by leadership specialists, the traditional leadership approach is very present in current publications, in English, compared to the contemporary approach. In Portuguese, the phenomenon seems to occur in reverse. However, the tiny amount of publications, especially prestigious ones, allows only a comparison in relative terms. Also, there is little attention and construction of proposals in dissertations and master’s theses on the evaluation of the topic in Portuguese. To reach this conclusion, the main databases, in Portuguese, with analyses in the period 2014–2021, were analyzed.

Specifically, regarding the English language analyses, prestigious publications grew in volume, in a proportional comparison between the two quadrenniums, while non-prestigious ones decreased. The following descriptors, by relative comparison, contribute little to the explanation of leadership research: Managerial Leadership, Leadership Capabilities, Business Leadership, Business Leader, Leadership Theories, Strategic Leadership, Coach Leader. The Web of Science is the outstanding for leadership research among the prestigious databases. Meanwhile, the Portal de Periódicos Capes database is the best option in terms of number of works among the non-prestigious. There has been growing interest in English language publications for the traditional, conservative approach to leadership over the past 8 years, particularly among non-prestigious media. This suggests that, in current discussions, in which there is greater dynamism, and publications reach society more quickly, researchers in English are comparatively less interested in issues related to leadership in the future, with innovative themes. This inference is supported by the decrease in publications with all the main descriptors of the contemporary mental model.

Some issues, such as the pandemic, economic crises, market instability, world political unrest, among other factors, may have potentiated the focus of management on the present, with an emphasis on asset management and efficiency. This may have minimized the management focus for the future, innovation, people’s plans, including their careers, concerns about organizational and social architecture. If this last discussion can be generalized, based on future studies, perhaps, in times of unrest and turmoil, researchers and society mostly seek management phenomena with a focus on meeting present demands, on satisfying interests in the short and medium term, in objective direction and process management. This could be an interesting application in the organizational environment.

In Portuguese, when comparing both quadrenniums, there is an increase in prestigious publications and a decrease in non-prestigious publications on leadership. However, there is a very small number of publications in prestigious media, when compared to the English language, a discussion that confirms the proposition of [7]. It is impressive that, for every 10,000 publications generated on the topic in English, 14 in Portuguese are generated in prestigious media and 267 in non-prestigious. These data reinforce a perception of the experts who participated in the qualitative phase of the research that, historically, the literature in English is the main and most used to provide current issues, innovations and trends to students, professionals and researchers in Brazil (by extension, in several Portuguese-speaking countries), in the administration and business subarea, which encompasses the topic, despite its transversality. The following descriptors contribute little to the explanation of research on the subject: Managerial Leadership, Leadership Capabilities, Business Leadership, Leadership Theories, Leader Behavior, Coach Leader, Strategic Leadership. Scielo is the main database for research on leadership among the prestigious ones. Meanwhile, the Google Scholar database appears to be the best option in terms of number of works among non-prestigious ones. Unlike the behavior of publications in English, about 70% in Quadrennium 1 involve descriptors of the contemporary mental model. And this index remains relatively stable, with around 67% in Quadrennium 2, and an average of 69% over the last 8 years. This last index, in English, is 33%. Keeping due proportions, it can be concluded that the relative interest on the part of Portuguese-speaking researchers in communicating explicitly is more directed towards the contemporary mental model than among the English-speaking researchers.

The prestigious bases encourage discussion and circulate already consolidated knowledge, as ways of replicating mature research, especially by researchers and advanced stricto sensu postgraduate students. Furthermore, in English, they seem to be relatively attached to a traditional mental model, due to the recurrence of terms and expressions that emphasize the circulation of research with this set of meanings, whereas, in Portuguese, the prestigious databases seem to reinforce a growing interest in research with a contemporary mental model. The low recurrence of works in Portuguese, in prestigious media, may be an indication that the topic has not aroused so much interest in the last 8 years in primary researchers with this native language. The reasons justifying this low percentage participation in relation to comprehensive media could constitute the subject of new studies. Non-prestigious databases have fewer filters (which can reach almost none) for their publication dynamics, allowing discussion of the phenomenon in real time or closer to it, with greater social participation. This fact does not occur in prestigious databases, due to the scientific rigor applied and the time gap between submission, publication and dissemination of the work.

There are many research points in agreement with the propositions raised in [7]. Responding more directly to the issues present in that work, the research proved that publications on the topic need more attention and promotion in Portuguese, as They do not meet the desired volume when comparing the production between prestigious and non-prestigious bases. Also, they lack quality, if the repository evaluation criterion is used, presenting the Google Scholar base as positioned far ahead of other bases. The proposition that complex leadership themes need to be better studied and published proved to be true, according to the research parameters and the incidence of descriptors. Partially refuting one of its propositions, the research on the contemporary mental model seems to have an exploratory character, not only in Portuguese, but also in English, at least for this research, since it is not shown with great scientific and social penetration, when compared, in relative terms, with more conservative management initiatives. And, finally, the statistics shown on the massive interest in publications on the traditional mental model in English, disagree, in part, with the conclusions of the work by [7].

It is worth mentioning that, even authors with native Portuguese language, who publish regularly in English for the bases investigated, in the vast majority of periodicals and journals, the title, abstract and keywords would be published in native languages, for national journals. This would allow selection of publication in bibliometric research. It may be that some Portuguese-speaking authors publish directly in foreign journals, without recourse to publishing part of the work in Portuguese. If so, an assumption may be supported by the opportunity for international publications to satisfy the scientific bias and publication pretensions of Portuguese-speaking researchers on the topic.

The distance between the two halves of the descriptors investigated, the primary and secondary blocks, both in Portuguese and English language bases, may show a slightly distant or partially mistaken perception of specialists on the topic. However, the Focus Group process was conducted with methodological rigor by eight specialists with defined, well-developed academic, scientific and professional careers. From a qualitative and stratum assessment point of view, the sampling can be considered adequate. Of the 28 descriptors proposed, only half, with little variation between languages, proved to be relevant in all spectrums of analysis. One supposition is that some core terms were not listed, or that some suggested ones have probably fallen into disuse, especially in recent times, in the 8-year time frame of the research. Therefore, for future research, especially bibliometric analysis, it is recommended to use as descriptors the terms or expressions recorded only in the first block of Tables 2–5, unless the research is specific to a topic, not comparative. Another option would be to carry out the bibliometric research without the descriptors, Management, Leader and Leadership, and their equivalents in Portuguese, since their very high recurrences may have obscured the relative comparisons, and this could be the subject of a future investigation.

There may have been partial overlapping of citations in some databases, such as Periódicos Capes and Google Scholar with other databases. However, as some databases are free and others have paid access, different focuses, varied classifications of journals, publications of diverse natures, among other reasons, we accept the judgment that these events did not interfere, at least not significantly, with the survey results.

The discussion in [10] that new approaches or new theories of leadership are ways of self-replicating old theories cannot be proven through research, at least with the methodology adopted for this work, as it would need an in-depth qualitative approach. It is estimated that one of the contributions of the work was to point out better paths and discussions for the more mature development of other research proposals, and aid construction of new understandings, studies and investigations on the subject.

Another limitation of the research, although not the target of it, which may be opportune to broaden the discussion and better understand the information generated, was the restriction of the qualitative analysis of the Phase 2 data, thus not possible for the method designed. The method established for this work was unique, unprecedented, designed specifically to conduct the research effort. Therefore, despite being performed with a satisfactory percentage of success by the authors, it deserves to be better tested, analyzed in new samples and compared with future works, in order to confirm its success in new applications.

It is believed that the analysis in two quadrenniums produced satisfactory research results, albeit without exhausting the subject. It is suggested that further research and investigations be carried out on the topic with emphasis and a dichotomous view of management, for example, increasing the time frame, adding other descriptors or extending searches to new databases, including classifying journals by strata, evaluating the recurrence of works and citations of authors ordered by descriptor or degree of recurrence in the leadership theme. As presented, the objective of this research was not to exhaust the subject nor to be an end point in the discussions on the evolution of the leadership theme. On the contrary, it is intended to stimulate reflection, discussion and be a catalyst for new research and investigations on the subject, as suggested. The view in this work is that complementary, more mature development of other research proposals, both academic and in the competitive organizational environment, are necessary and opportune as a contribution to the theme.