A great article by Didier Marlier from the Enabler’s Network got me thinking about the impact of technology to overall leadership styles needed to stride in this modern time and age. Didier kindly asked me to elaborate these thoughts a little further and the post below can also be found from his Enabler’s Network blog.
John Maeda often talks about creative leadership vs authoritarian leadership. In many ways, these 2 leadership types or styles stem back to the early days of culture and are described on many levels by cross cultural experts like Trompenaars, Hofstede and Edward T. Hall , as power distance. In certain cultures, leaders were considered as “demi gods” who had absolute power and were never to be questioned. In other cultures, leaders were chosen through a collectivist approach in which the overall community assigned their leader but also played a part in the overall decision making.
In business, the traditional leadership styles of the “authoritarian leadership camp” have been dominant throughout the century. This has been the preferred school of thought and used as the nucleus of management education for decades. As societies and cultural landscapes evolve, so do the technological enablers around us. Whether it’s the emergence of radio broadcasts, TV, the internet or mobile communication, these have profound impacts on societies as well as overall cultural norms. These technological disruptions are also forming interesting paradigm shifts within societies, allowing us to witness an interesting generation shift in not only societies, but also in how the notion of a leader is shaping and evolving.
Authoritarian leadership relies strongly on avoiding mistakes. This kind of leadership strides and continues to be relevant in certain circumstances. For example, the military or car factories rely on everyone playing exactly their part in the picture, responsibility is divided in vertical hierarchy and “the parts of the machinery” are expected to perform (and stick to) their task. The leader is the person who asserts his power, accountability and possesses all the answers. It is very much about being in control and managing through authority. There is a striking resemblance between traditional media and authoritarian leadership. It is very much about the brand broadcasting (and controlling) the message across the numerous media touch points. In this scenario, then brand is in control and the message is very much crafted from a company perspective. However, as we all know the media industry in undergoing a massive transformation. The emergence of the internet has led us to scenarios in which brands are no longer able to control the message, consumers are more and more in control and successful brands are those who are capable of adding value to their customer through serving their social practices. These disruptions cause for a fundamental rethink on engagement strategies, and leadership.
Creative leadership stems from a different set of values. It bubbles from uncertainty, from creativity and experimentation. These types of characteristics coincide with the way in which the overall internet landscape has come to being. When thinking about the overall evolution of the internet, it has always been one that supported open standards and information sharing. Where in the past good business ideas were kept secret, these days they are shared openly across virtual networks in hope of recognition and collective assurance, acceptance and collaboration. Because the internet landscape is evolving so rapidly, it becomes more and more difficult for anyone to really become a guru in this space. Previous titles and merits are important, but being successful in this space requires people to go through a continuous rebirth of knowledge, just as a Phoenix bird goes through a rebirth every thousand years (except internet cycles are probably closer to 1 year instead of 1000 years). Relying on legacy and a “what has worked in the past, will work again” mentality is detrimental in the online space.
This is where I believe the fundamental generation gap in leadership is coming to life. It is not a generation gap that is related to age, but to mind set. Your personal equity as a leader relies on your ability to deal with ambiguity, uncertainty and a rapidly changing landscape. You need to prove yourself every day, not only to yourself but especially to your team. As it is impossible to be an expert in everything, you become more dependent on your network and in the end, what you know becomes irrelevant. It’s important to know, “who knows” and that the person “who knows”, respects you and shares your vision. Creative leadership strides in the digital era, not only because it shares common characteristics to the evolution of the web, but also because it shares many of the same values that enabled the internet to become what it is today. The true power of creative leadership is that it creates a following which is based on mutual goals, a shared vision that unites people not only from a rational perspective, but also from a heart and “gut” perspective.
Just as brands need to rethink their engagement strategies with their consumers, overall leadership practices need to live up to the changing times. Is your mind, heart and “gut” ready?
Neighborhood marketing
09/04/2009
After a refreshing week at the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco, i find myself more motivated and energized than in a long time. John Maeda, the President of RISD gave a great presentation on creative leadership, while Tara Hunt shook some corporate foundations with the Whuffie factor ideology. In essence, my personal key take away from the conference was extremely liberating: we can be more human again. As crazy as it sounds, the information age has evolved heavily around information processing, where programs and computers are created to exercise calculations way too arduous for any human brain to complete day in and day out. This strong technology focus has and continues to be important, but we are also witnessing a pendulum shift towards utilizing the technology to be more human again. Being human is more about having conversations, collaborating and sharing. Social networks are enabling us to come together as tribes again, but simultaneously the same tribal rules apply: give love to get love. This is especially important for brands who wish to operate in this space.
Tribes work very similarly to a neighborhood. Different types of people come together to live their lives, have conversations, create relationships and make a living. A brand that wants to be a part of a neighborhood, needs to EARN their right to be there. Unfortunately, since the industrial revolution, brands have become accustomed to simply intruding the neighborhoods by bombarding their messages down consumers throats. It’s been easy for brands to do this, when you channel your advertising budgets through analog/one way media. The more you pay, the louder your microphone becomes. However, in the digital era, brands can’t replace time with money. Involvement in social media takes time and time is becoming the “new money” that companies need to see as their new working media.
Different brands can play different roles in the neighborhood, but it all comes down to bringing more value to the venue than what you take. Companies like Google are providing tools like their maps service, that allow other companies, communities and consumers to make use of their service in their own context. This has enabled Google to successfully expand their digital presence across the internet, as they are providing value in return for their service usage and visibility on other web properties. Other brands are using the Google API’s for creating marketing campaigns, mashing up their own services and recording their traveled journeys. Threadless on the other hand, is all about connecting people that share a passion for design and t-shirts. They have enabled an environment where you don’t only go to to buy nice t-shirts, but to submit designs and receive feedback from the community on how you could improve as an artist.
When i think about the 2 examples above, i think there’s some great references to brands being a part of a neighborhood. Google has provided the neighborhood with free electricity. The consumers can use the electricity as they please, while companies need to pay a small fee for it. Other brands can build more appliances that work with electricity and maybe each light bulb in the house has an ad that Google serves based on the type of household it is. (ok, maybe going a little too far there) Threadless on the other hand has built an art gallery that is open for anyone to submit their work and sell it. They have taken care of the facilities and even have a payment system in place. In both cases, the brands are being good neighbors by being enablers for the society and giving love to get love. These kinds of neighbors earn trust, respect and in the end, (yes, gotta say it), money.
