Impact of digitalisation on the structure of youth political leadership

At the present stage, youth political leadership is in the focus of attention of researchers due to the fact that youth policy is an important part of public policy. The concept of the youth political leadership is relatively new and interdisciplinary, integrating politological, sociological, psychopolitical, and managerial approaches. To analyse the phenomenon, the systematisation of scientific approaches to the study of political leadership is conducted, 6 stages of the development of scientific thought from the second half of the XIX century to the beginning of the XXI one are highlighted. The classical and modern theories of leadership are considered. The article substantiates the mediation of methodological approaches to the political leadership by the historical and political context and the level of development of the political culture of society. They are the basis for studying the structure of the phenomenon in question. It is proved that under the influence of digitalisation as the most important aspect of reality, as an attribute of politics and the socio-economic sphere, the structure of the youth political leadership is undergoing a change. Digitalisation makes adjustments to the existing scientific and methodological basis of the political leadership. The analysis of available leadership concepts has shown a movement from its personal aspect to the socio-interactive one, however, in the context of digital transformation, it is necessary to introduce a digital component of leadership. Based on empirical data, the modern structure of the youth political leadership is derived, consisting of three components: personal, socio-interactive, and digital.

1. Andriyanchenko E.G. Theoretical analysis of the problem of leadership in foreign social psychology. Young scientist. 2012;10:256–261. (In Russian).

2. Anufryenko L.V. Recent trends in leadership study. Vestnik Polotskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya E. Pedagogicheskie nauki. 2012;15:23–26. (In Russian).

3. Argyris Ch. Increasing leadership effectiveness. New York: Academic Press; 1976. 286 p.

4. Barysheva T.A. “Creativity. Self-cognition experience” – a technology ofstudents’ reflexive self-organization in the information educational environment. Izvestia: Herzen University Journal of Humanities & Sciences. 2013;158:26–36. (In Russian).

5. Bass B.M. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press; 1985. 256 p.

6. Batygin G.S. Talcott Parsons’ structural functionalism. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2003;4–5:6–34. (In Russian).

7. Bennis W.G., Nanus B. Leaders. The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper Business; 2007.

8. Calder B.J. An attribution theory of leadership. In: New directions in organizational behavior. Chicago: St. Clair Press; 1977. Pp. 179–204.

9. Carlyle Th. On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic in history. Moscow: Eksmo, 2008. 864 p. (In Russian).

10. Dorfman L.Ya. Levels and types of creativity: analysis of modern psychological concepts. Psychological Journal. 2015;1(36):81–90. (In Russian).

11. Green S.G., Nebeker D.M. The effects of situational factor and leadership style on leader behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1977;2(19):368–377.

12. Hermann M.G. The ingredients of leadership. In: Political psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1986.

13. Irkhin Y.V. Political leadership: the criterion of effectiveness. Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law. 2014;7(3):6–14. (In Russian).

14. Kudryashova E.V. Leader and leadershipю Leadership studies in the modern Western socio-political thought. Arkhangelsk: Pomorsky Sate University named after M.V. Lomonosov; 1996. 252 p. (In Russian).

15. Le Bon G. Psychology of peoples and masses.Trans. from Fr. A. Fridman, E. Pimenova. 3rd ed. Moscow: Academichesky proekt; 2015. 239 p. (In Russian).

16. Lombroso Ch. Genius and insanity. Moscow: Eksmo; 2018. 160 p. (In Russian).

17. Lysyuk A.I. Political leadership: the symbolic aspect. Mogilev State A. Kuleshov University Bulletin. 2004;2–3(18):45–50. (In Russian).

18. Maslow A.H. Motivation and personality. Moscow: Piter; 2019. 352 p. (In Russian).

19. Neuberger O. Leading and being led. Stuttgart: UTB; 1990. (In German).

20. Parsons T. Тhe structure of social action. 2nd ed. Moscow: Academichesky proekt; 2002. 880 p. (In Russian).

21. Pinkevich A.G. Theory of political leadership in the era of digital communications. Uchenye zapiski St. Petersburg University of Management Technologies and Economics. 2019;3:50–55. (In Russian).

22. Ritzi C., Schaal G.S. Political leadership in the “post-democracy”. From Politics and Contemporary History. 2010;2–3:9–15. (In German).

23. Selezneva A.V., Khatkevich A.A., Baranova T.V. Youth political leadership in modern Russia: determination of the theoretical foundations and conceptual framework of the study. Political expertise: POLITEX. 2023;2(19):283–297. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu23.2023.209

24. Sharkov F.I. Public relations. Moscow: Dashkov & K; 2014. 332 p. (In Russian).

25. Stogdill R.M. Hardbook of leadership. A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press; 1974. 613 p.

26. Sudorgin O.A., Agafonov A.V. The impact of digitalization on forming modern youth political leadership. Management. 2024;2(12):99–108. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.26425/2309-3633-2024-12-2-99-108

27. Tracy B., Sheelen F.M. Personal leadership. Trans. from Eng. Moscow: Popurri; 2008. 288 p. (In Russian).

28. Weber M. Selected works. Trans. from Germ. Moscow: Progress; 1990. 804 p. (In Russian).

29. Winkler I. Contemporary leadership theories. Enhancing the understanding of the complexity, subjectivity and dynamic of leadership. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2010. 107 р.

30. Winter D.G. Personality and political behavior. In: The Oxford handbook of political psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.

31. Zaleznik A. Managers and leaders: are they different? Harvard Business review. 1977.