In several discussions with We see a development of convergence on all levels of live. Technologies that are blurring into one, time and space, and even our lives. It has been a development that’s been evolving ever since the end of the Second World War, after which we, in our companies, have been trying to be as efficient as possible. A transparent, hierarchical and converging working ethos is a result of that. As such we’ve been lead inside big corporations by its leaders. And outside of it, we came to follow our leaders in church and in politics. They knew what was best for us, and we willingly followed on their chosen paths.
So what has changed? Because of the convergence of life, a divergence of possibilities has arisen. We can achieve and do pretty much anything we want these days: airplanes takes us to the other side of the world in mere hours, converging time and space and creating the possibility to live in parts of the world we haven’t gone before. And the mere fact that I can use my phone these days as a camera, calendar, internet browser and music player, and yes, also as a phone, allows me to use that device in a myriad of ways. Convergence thus leading to divergence.
It has increased the power of the individual. It has gotten to a point where there is no simple truth anymore. There are multiple truths and our society has become a pancake in which all seem to be equal. The traditional institutions of religion and government have fallen down, we are no longer being lead by them. We see it in the decreasing numbers of church visits and the transformation to other beliefs (PDF). But also in the difficulty some nations have to form a government that supposedly will lead their people.
It seems that the empowerment has now gone so far, that we are starting to determine our own paths. In a world of abundance and information overload, the question becomes: who are we looking at to direct our lives? It seems that we are looking more at each other and the brands that surround us. Are we being led by the corporations and the capitalism of this world, as Barber argues?
Whatever the case: it is no single person or entity that is leading us anywhere at all. Sure we get inspired, but from various directions and in multiple ways. In Wikipedia it is stated that leadership is: “the ability to affect human behavior so as to accomplish a mission designated by the leader“. I don’t think that is possible anymore in our day and age. I have to admit that it is still possible inside the structure of the corporation. But how much longer will those traditional structures stand when the next generation (Dutch) is entering the workforce. A generation that has lived its entire life in a divergent society without any single truths?
Final thought: the people and institutions that still think of themselves as leaders are desperately trying to gather the people behind them. The only way that seems to still work for a relatively short period of time, is by creating a crisis. In those moments of despair a chance arises for leaders to gain momentum. See the war on terror and many shocks like it…
Image
Jorgen, indeed ’shocking’ material and a great visualisation of Naomi Kleins most recent book: Shock-doctrine.
On your statement on the ‘end of leadership’, I think it is true that in the end of the convergence-phase one might think ‘i can do without a leader’ since the clue in convergent-thinking is that we are nearing a conclusion… so who needs leadership then. Others who hate the feeling of determination embrace bottom-up thinking the create some turbulence in the system. According to our philosophy we are in the middle of a system-change from convergence to divergence. A divergent phase has an open-ending and is characterized by more chaos and complexity. So ‘Is leadership back on the rise?’… will people except more leadership in a turbulent era? Might be for two reasons…
1. KEEPING CONTROL (using authority to prevent the system to change into something new, which is always painfull) - Putin?
2. GIVING COMMAND (leading the way with a vision and guiding the change) - Sarkozy?
So I think it is time for NEW LEADESHIP and certainly not the end of it… strangely enough we will first need a SHOCK to accept new leadership =)
As true as that seems, I wonder whether we will still allow ourselves to be lead by such political figures. Do I feel a citizen of my country, or do I feel a citizen of this world? And if the latter applies, who then will I allow to lead me through this age of transformation? If we are all more consumers of this world, it seems to me, that brands could/are those new leaders and navigators…
It seems like the duality of being both a citizen and consumer, but also being a local and global inhabitant of this planet, where all perspectives are within my reach, the world is polarizing more and more. That fragmentation is driving right through all layers of society. I think that it will lead to a stand-off between different directions. How much longer will we be able to govern our societies when we all want something different? If it is one direction AND another opposite direction is that possible at all? You are either FOR or AGAINST us…will that hold true and lead us in the FOR or AGAINST direction…I doubt it…
And if that is the case, a shock will occur no matter what: a collision of worlds (if that is not the case already)
My take on this is that in this day of individualization, empowerment and consumerism, all focused on development and exploration of SELF, LEADERSHIP became a more diffuse. Strong hierarchical leadership is not something we see a lot anymore, it seems increasingly imposed. On the other hand bottom-up leadership seems like a compromise of internal views, acting to satisfy as many opinions as possible. In this day of ME-thinking, leaders address personal fears or wants, address the individual as an entity. We-thinking addresses the collective as the entity.
It seems to me that leadership is increasingly becoming of strong inspirational value rather than strong hierarchical leading telling the individual what to do and think or bottom-up leadership which feels like a bit of a compromise, lacking a inspirational view. Maybe leadership becomes about creating an environment in which people can explore, create and at the same time take their responsibility for the whole. Steering the duality between consumerism and citizenship. Giving attention to empowerment of the individual, regarding the social cohesion. Coaching instead of hierarchical leading. I think new leadership is not about creating strong polarizing views, resulting in FOR or AGAINST mentality, I think, I hope, it is that what unites as a hybrid Me/We thinking and unites shared believes or goals.
The vision or ideas this type of leadership breathes, as any, will have opposing forces from other uniting visions or ideas in an interconnected/ globalized world where several identities and value-systems are trying to prevail. A lot of international conflict comes forth from leaders trying to impose their view, or more importantly their value system. This, to me, does not seem a sustainable way of operating, as it creates a lot of kick-back. Leadership should take into account it’s changed position in the whole and opperate, progress and stimulate from there.
On somewhat of a sidetrack… We’re also seeing how companies changing their organization or way of operating from hierarchical, to chain, to network to community. This indicated that the external structures of operating have already changed. Is it not now turn for internal change?
I doubt whether any organization is already transforming toward a community structure. I believe that the way a company is organized influences the internal workings of it by definition. So, although companies are changing (but from within as without), they’re still far from being a community. However, it is inevitable that they’re transforming in that direction.
In relation to leadership I think it is even more apparent, that a change has not yet occurred yet. The leaders in companies tend to surround themselves with the like minded, or the ones that support them based on the fear for being fired. I’m not too sure, such leadership inspires. It controls and determines direction.
So, in my opinion, the changes in society are much further ahead than the changes inside companies. In this instance I think business will follow society. And not because they want to (efficiency is much easier than effectivity), but because they will be forced to do so. I do wonder whether the shocks that will go through society will be more dramatic (read: bankruptcy) than in society or that it is going to be the other way around…