dispatches from the new world of work

Leadership/Errata #2 (Sorta)

As to my "nothing new under the sun" in the "leadership thing," I want to add (then, mostly, delete) one thing. Thanks to the new technologies, in particular, tomorrow's leaders and "followers"* must be comfortable dealing with the whole, wide, weird, opinionated, fickle world at the speed of light. (*Actually, there will be damn few workforce survivors with a "follower's mentality"—hence my decade-long Brand You obsession.) It's about not "greater international awareness," or some such—though that is part of it. It's instead "the Way of the Web," Wikinomics, Crowdsourcing, Web 2.0, Web 3.0, and the like—that is, the whole damn planet is in play concerning most anything; and you are trying to more or less wring value-profit somehow or other and God alone knows either the "somehow" or the "other."

On the other hand, there is an other hand. That is, oddly, a bizarre technology-driven revolution calls for far, far better "people skills," cultural awareness, and a certain looseness that allows you to go with-adapt to-get off on the weird flow. That is, the Age of the Web is for leaders the Age of EQ.* (*Emotional intelligence.) Quite simply, the old command and control styles and idea of dispassionate, order-barking "architect" or "conductor" of an orderly, hierarchical enterprise is dead, kaput—outta here.

Addenda on this topic/Leadership's eternal verities: Want to read perhaps the Best Management Book Ever? Try the Federalist Papers—recall my wife gave me an exquisite first edition for Christmas. The fellas—Hamilton, Madison, et a few alia —are trying to define a wholly new organizational approach based on a brand new conception of citizenry which will be slightly manageable and perpetually innovative and conducive to the pursuit of happiness. They are primarily wrestling with the eternal "centralization [Hamilton] versus decentralization [Jefferson]" conundrum—and, equally important, the inherently unsolvable tension between the two. (Extreme centralization = King or Dictator—and a dim view of citizens' self-management skills. Extreme decentralization = Anarchy—Brand You run amok.) This "battle"—centralization v. decentralization—is the leader's primary strategic task—and it will be ever thus.

Tom Peters posted this on 01/16/07.

Comments

I remember the times I was an anti-apartheid activist. In Holland, a country of splitting hairs, there were two national anti-apartheid organizations. One called me up from time to time, to show up here or there with a sign decrying someone or some business (usually Shell Oil). The other organization called me to see how I as a studentâ€”I was a young studentâ€”could best make contributions that work for students and involved other students. Guess which organization I worked with.

Posted by Niels Teunis at January 16, 2007 12:06 PM

Also here is a free way to read the Federalist Papers online: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

Posted by dan mcweeney at January 16, 2007 1:20 PM

"dedicated to all who are building the information commons" :)-

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5382

Posted by /pd at January 17, 2007 1:28 PM

Tom, you are right that leaders must be able to embrace and work with varied ideas. Any leadership or organization that plans it policies, meetings, or operations in a way to limit ideas and breadth of involvement with the world is going to eventually die. All the new technologies have opened the doors to ideas. The genie can no longer be controled or put back into the bottle. The leader of the future is the person who can work with others...with respect. Polarizing leaders are and will increasingly be very costly.

Posted by Phil Clark at January 19, 2007 10:59 AM

I see the centralization v decentralization as less of a battle and more of a cycle. One is ascendant and then Hubris sets in, leading to abuses and stupidities. Hubris is then inexorably followed by Nemesis dressed in reform clothes. The reform makes the other ascendant, which leads to Hubris and so on.

This is much like the cycle between pragmatism and idealism in American history that Arthur Schlesinger identified.

Posted by Wally Bock at January 21, 2007 1:13 PM

I like how Ken Blanchard addresses the tension between the organization and the individual. He raises the question, "Are the inmates running the asylum?" Then he reminds us of the obvious answer: "Of COURSE they are!" (Because a manager or leader can't be everywhere at once.) The only question is, "How WELL are they running the Asylum?" The answer to THAT question depends on how well they understand, embrace, and apply the VALUES of the organization. In Ken's paradigm, the primary function of the organization is to give direction to the individual workers through clear vision (where are we going?) and values (on what basis will we make decisions and behave in order to get there?) Then the individuals are free to make decisions and take action appropriately, effectively, and efficiently based on those values. Note the examples (and success) of Nordstrom's and Ritz-Carlton Hotels -- organizations that are driven by strong values of customer service.

Posted by Dr. Jim Dyke at February 26, 2007 9:56 PM