Chapter 1 - The Language of Leadership
The historical model of leadership accounted for two entitles - leader and follow - that were distinct not only in their function but in their character. Leadership was a privilege of birth: some were born to nobility and leadership, others to the peasantry and servitude. The thought that a peasant could lead was absurd, and that a leader could follow was an affront to morality itself.
This mindset, while seemingly primitive, carries through to the current day: while men are no longer subject by the prejudice of birth, they are often subject to just as much prejudice of perception - and whatever the cause it is still believed that leadership is a quality of a person, that distinguishes him as a leader and separates him from the lesser servant classes.
In the United States, the notion of belonging to a company did not change until only a few decades ago. Before then, it was believed that men would give lifelong service to one employer, and the employer would repay their loyalty with lifetime employment. (EN: this contract was broken by employers, with the corporate collapses and mass layoffs of the 1970s, and generations after the baby boomers remain very cynical about the trust they place in their employers as a result.) More importantly, the model was still very much entitled nobility and exploited peasantry. To be a mere worker was to occupy a lowly station in life and to owe awe and blind reverence to the leadership, even in the face of blatant abuse and misconduct.
The landscape has changed much since then, but management practices have remained rooted in the "golden age" in which those who were in leadership positions (even when they failed to act as leaders) had great power and privilege. It is with some desperation they attempt to cling to this past, but this notion is archaic and untenable.
Leadership and the Tech Revolution
The author suggests that the rapid advancement of technology, particularly the Internet and mobile computing, have dramatically changes the way people communicate with one another. (EN: I disagree - it has facilitated behavior that was already taking place, but that's a broader argument.)
However, the views of leadership and organizational management have been slow to change: the freedom of information and communication have posed a threat to their control - and the notion that anyone can talk to anyone without their express permission or facilitation has been horrifying. They want to prevent people from using this ability, or wish to ignore that the ability exists in hopes it will go away. It has not, and it is not.
By removing the formal controls, technology has empowered people to speak freely - to communicate directly with one another at their leisure, without protocols and without permission. In society as well as in organizations, this has broken the silos and enabled people to form large and amorphous networks of their own choosing, doing whatever is most efficient rather than what is permitted.
Most of this has occurred informally - social networking through Facebook and other "social media" services - and its uses have been largely frivolous. Some of it has reached the political realm, much to the chagrin of totalitarian leaders who used information access to control their people. Some of it has reached the commercial real, where totalitarian executives controlled their workers by much the same means.
Admittedly, the instances in which free communication among people have toppled long-standing institutions are rare - but likely far less rare than imagine: when a small and nimble company has stolen the market from a traditional corporate giant, it is often due to the benefits it has gained from a more open structure and communication. As such the nature of the revolution remains concealed: one company has toppled another (never mind what enabled them to do so).
Regarding technology itself, it is often relegated to a specific department and ignored by the rest of the organization. Very often the IT department is a staff agency with no strategic authority, and is left to provide technical solutions to the demands of other departments in a firm - and these other departments are merely looking for more efficient and effective ways of going about business as usual, rather than considering that the capabilities of technology enable them to do business in new ways that are significantly different and superior to those of the past.
Of particular importance is the democratizing power of technology - to put the power of information into the hands of the workers, and to circumvent leadership control. This undermines the hierarchy and silo of traditionally organizational structures that in the present age act as barriers rather than facilitators of organizational effectiveness and efficiency.
(EN: This is not necessarily the case. The traditional organization was designed in an era of peasant workers, and a company was the work of one mind and many hands. While there is the notion that in the present day most companies depend on the knowledge and not just the handiwork of employees, there are still some firms that can operate in the old model - in whole or in part - and for whom the older models are still quite applicable.)
Individuality and Equality
During the recent financial crisis, a great deal of attention has been given to the disparity between executive compensation and that of the workers, especially in light of the publicity received by enormous bonuses and severance packages given to senior executives in organizations that have been abominably managed.
She suggests that this comes and goes over the years: during some ages the compensation of leaders and of their employees has not been so grossly disproportionate, and at other times it has. Her sense is that the recent crises have merely swung the pendulum back a bit, and it may swing back again.
Today, the management literature offers many books and articles that speak of the rise in power for followers and the need for greater empowerment. However, their language and message is still rooted in a model dominated by the traditional hierarchy.
(EN: I think she may be overlooking a few things - namely the change in many organizations to depend on workers for their knowledge and to exist in an environment of change, not merely the performance of routine and well-defined tasks. This is more of a linear evolution and less of a cycle - but perhaps she will consider that more later.)
What Is Peer-to-Peer Computing Technology and How Is It Related?
The author invests some time in explaining peer-to-peer computing - in which resources (data, but also programs) reside on a number of computers rather than a central server. When a single computer needs resources, it can get them from one of its "peers" on the network rather than having to rely on a central machine (server) that provides them to all users.
(EN: The author belabors this a bit, and the examples she gives are oblique and a bit contrived. My concern is that if the metaphor is stretched too thin, it breaks - so I'm, not joining her for this excursion.)
New Theory or Paradigm Shift
The literature surrounding leadership has long used the analog of the machine - physical parts that fit together, each performing some small part of a larger function, that must be centrally orchestrated to make sure that the machine works efficiently.
The author suggests that this paradigm no longer fits many organizations, whose business is not to perform a known task, but to find ways to solve problems and exploit opportunities. It is not a machine whose task is to perform, but a mind whose task is to learn and discover. This is where computer technology (which is an artificial mind) provides a more fitting metaphor. In such an organization, the function of leaders cannot be to control action to conform to known standards but must be to stimulate thinking where the desired outcome is unknown.
In most organizations, relationship and information flow are organized in some form of hierarchical model, through which information moves slowly from bottom to top and authority moves slowly from top to bottom, preventing the organization from being nimble.
However, hierarchies are not the only model. What is often seen in popular movements (EN: she is likely attempting to avoid mentioning criminal or terrorist networks due to their nefarious goals, but they are a more common example) is more of a nodular structure in which small clusters of people can rapidly take action and coordinate with other nodes as necessary to perform actions that require greater resources.
Summary
The author mentions the example of geese that fly in a V-formation to move for longer distances by virtue of the combined lift. This metaphor has been used as a justification for the tight and rigid way that organizations coordinate their structure. And because the geese are all flying to the same place, a known destination that they have visited over and over in the past, they benefit from this efficiency.
The modern corporation does not follow a tried and true path, and is very often engaged in searching for a destination. Flying in a tight formation is not efficient for this sort of activity, as it covers less ground and ensures that every member of the flock ends up in the same destination, even if it is the wrong one.
In the same way, the hierarchy of traditional organizational management has its purpose in an organization that is doing known tasks in a repetitive manner, but is of little use to firms who need to innovate and discover new tasks. The firms that continue to regard employees as "hands" that do the work of a single "mind" are not likely to outmaneuver firms that put many minds on a task.
Success in today's world of business requires thinking from more than one individual - and so it follows that it requires a change away from the traditional model of organizational management, which was designed to engage employees in the pursuit of one leader's thinking. IT likely even requires revisiting the concept of leadership itself.