Social IT revolution calling for new ways to lead

New York Times columnist and author Tom Friedman had a fascinating article in yesterday’s paper about the United States’ two current revolutions — Wall St. and Silicon Valley. In the article Friedman includes Marc Benioff’s description of the IT revolution, which he calls SOCIAL.

  • S = speed
  • O = open. “If you don’t have an open environment inside your company or country, these new tools will blow you wide open.”
  • C = collaboration. “This revolution enables people to organize themselves within companies and societies into loosely coupled teams to take on any kind of challenge — from designing a new product to taking down a government.”
  • I = individuals. “People are able to reach around the globe to start something or collaborate on something farther, faster, deeper, cheaper than ever before — as individuals.”
  • A = alignment. “The power of social media is that it is easier than ever to both articulate, and reinforce, the vision and values that create and inspire alignment.”
  • L = leadership. “In a SOCIAL world leadership has to be a mix of bottom-up and top-down. Leaders need to inspire, enable, and empower everything coming up from below in a company or a social movement and then edit and sculpt it into a vision from above into a final product.”

From my observation working with large organizations, the greatest opportunity — and challenge — for companies is the Land the A. The I’s seem to be quickly  adopting the S, O and C.

As companies plan to roll-out internal social collaboration platforms like Sharepoint, Newsgator and Jive, they worry a lot about putting rules and guidelines around what employees can and cannot do.  Many fear what might happen if employees can connect freely. How are we going to prevent “them” from saying or doing inappropriate things, they ponder.

The bigger question to me is how is social changing how we lead? 

  • How are we going to help and recognize managers to do and say more appropriate things that will make a difference to business outcomes?
  • What new competencies will help managers tap into the extraordinary potential value?
  • What traditional management practices are no longer as relevant — and what is emerging as more relevant?
  • What might be possible if leaders were more passionate, and less fearful about SOCIAL?

Servant Management 2.0?

We know that Web 2.0 is creating a new participatory culture of work, with people helping one another vs. going up the  traditional management hierarchy,  with an expectation of transparent,  two-way communications, with the view that everyone has a voice regardless of title or tenure.

What does this major culture shift mean for managers — not CEOs, but middle managers? A redefining of roles, new skills and qualities and new performance guidelines. Yet,  in my work lately I’ve noticed two things among diverse types of companies:

  • Companies aren’t helping to redefine these middle manager roles and coach these managers on how to manage differently. These people are struggling, in some cases suffocating.
  • Because these roles aren’t changing as fast as the adoption of new ways of working, companies aren’t realizing as many of the gains from social media — innovation, getting more value from resources, speeding problem solving — as they could be. At such a difficult economic time, we need to bust down the barriers to speed, innovation, efficiency and effectiveness.

Dusting off servant leadership qualities

What are the  most important management skills in this new collaborative world?  Some great insight can be found in “Servant As Leader,” the 37-page essay  written in 1970 by Robert Greenleaf, who had been director of management research for AT&T.

These ideas are 38 years old but seem pretty relevant. (Pardon the use of “he”; Greenleaf was from another generation.)

  1. Initiative: He initiates…and takes the risk of failure along with the chance of success.
  2. Focused on outcomes: By clearly stating and restating the goal the leader gives certainty and purpose to others who may have difficulty in achieving it themselves.
  3. Listening and understanding: True listening  builds strength in other people.
  4. Language: Nothing is meaningful until it is related to the hearer’s own experience.
  5. Withdrawal: The ability to withdraw and reorient oneself, if only for a month, presumes that one has learned the art of systematic neglect, to sort out the more important from the less important, even though there may be penalties and censure for the neglect of something else.
  6. Acceptance and empathy: The servant always empathizes, always accepts the person but sometimes refuses to accept some of the person’s effort or performance as good enough.
  7. Intuition: Intuition is a feel for patterns, the ability to generalize based on what has happened previously. The wise leader knows when to bet on these intuitive leads, but he always knows that he is betting on percentages — his hunches are not seen as eternal truths.
  8. Awareness and perception: When one is aware, there is more than the usual alertness, more intense contact with the immediate situation, and more is stored away in the unconscious computer to product intuitive insights in the future when needed.
  9. Reject coercive power and authority: The trouble with coercive power is that it only strengthens resistance. And, if successful, its controlling effect lasts only as long as the force is strong. It is not organic. Only persuasion and the consequent voluntary acceptance are organic.

The two I find especially compelling and where there seems to be the greatest lag in training: #3 and #6.

Your thoughts on Management 2.0 qualities/skills?