Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Leadership implications of the web
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Leadership implications of the web

1,554

Published on

January 2011 mbodlg.org program

January 2011 mbodlg.org program

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,554
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • \n
  • \n
  • Revolution. We‘re onto something big! Many people use the analogy of the invention of the Gurenberg press. Professor Clay Shirky says „The result is a number of deep, long-term transformations in the culture, structure, process, and economics of work.” \nMindset/s Culture Though the tools are important, there is a more basic shift in culture, from one-way, hierarchical, organization-centric relationsips toward two-way, network-centric culture, participative and collaborative rellationships. \nNew Paradigm for Leadership emerging: This cultural change requires a shift in leadership paradigm, along with changes in mindset and skills for leaders . \nCommons: a new sector consisting of efforts to promote the common good, consisting of collaboration across the other sectors and the actions of free agents acting independently.\nEmergence: A concept borrowed from complexity theory, that describes the spontaneous creativity at the border of order and chaos.\n
  • Everywhere we looked we saw signs that mindets about leadership were changing, a change that needed broader recognition and acceptance. \nWe‘ve grouped these signs into 7 areas:\n
  • \nAs Ronald Heifetz has long advocated, it‘s more useful to think of leadership as an activity rather than a role. It‘s what people do, from any position, rather than where they sit, that shapes leadership. You might have a total absence of leadership on the part of a manager, yet see leaderhspi result from someone who has no one reporting to her.\n
  • \nThe father of modern leadership theory, James McGregor Burns, was asked in an interview about the next frontier for the field of leadership. Without hesitation he answered, “We need to better understand leadership as a collective process.” \n\nThe age of the individual “heroic” leader is coming to a close. As James Surowiecki has documented in The Wisdom of the Crowd, there is evidence that under many conditions groups make better decisions than individuals. \n\nBut even when it makes sense for an individual decide, collective input and participation is increasingly necessary in a complex world that is changing at an accelerated pace.\n
  • The age of heroic leaders is over, but we do need powerful leaders of a new kind: people who have evolved to higher stages of development, who have the capacity to deal with the complexity of the world we now live in. \n\nMost of us are „in over our heads“, to quote the title of a book by Harvard Professor Robert Kegan. \nHe has found, for example that fewer than 10% have reached the stage of being autonomous decision makers, able to make up their own minds, \nAnd fewer than 1% have reached truly optimal levels for leadership in a complex world.\n
  • An IT manager in IBM Germany made an impression on us when he said: “It is increasingly difficult to separate inside from outside. We are engaged not just with our own internal networks but also in alliances, doing joint development…It’s a ‘blurring borderline. Both within and among organizations, it is increasingly the case that leadership is exercised through networks. I‘ll speak in a few minutes about the importance of this as an area of new skill development for leaders\n
  • Network maps are for many purposes replacing organization charts as a way of understanding how things happen. \nThe organization chart was appropriate for an era in which we thought of organizations as machines, in which influence followed a predictable and linear path. This has been the dominant metaphor for centuries.\nBy contrast, network maps are a tool more appropriate to the emerging metaphor of organizations as organisms, that rely on networks to adapt and change. \n
  • The adapation of organisms doesn‘t lend itself to planning and control. Rather it‘s a matter of sensing, adapting, and learning\nThe leadership scholar Steven Haeckel wrote: “Until recently, one could notice something emerging on the edge and—because it would take so long for its effect to be felt in the core—safely ignore it…We are now in a different era, one where edges emerge and rise up with astonishing speed to catalyze changes on a global basis in less time than ever before” (Hagel et al., p. 57). \nHe goes on to say: “The only kind of strategy that makes sense in the face of unpredictable change, is a strategy to become adaptive” \n
  • People born between 1980 and 2000 are variously called Generation Y, Generation F (for Facebook), The Net Generation, and Milennials. They „grew up digital,“ and are bringing new expectations with them for more participative and communicative relationships, ones that are less hierarchical. They will be attracted to organizations in which leaders are willing to be responsive, and are not likely to stay at those that are not. \nGary Hamel articulated 12 “work-relevant characteristics of online life”: These include\nAll ideas are on an equal footing\nContribution counts more than credentials\nTasks are chosen, not assigned\nPower comes from sharing information, not hoarding it\nUsers can veto most policy decisions\nIntrinsic rewards matter most\n
  • Taken together, we believe that these signs constitute a compelling case for a new leadership paradigm, or perhaps more than one.\n\nWe identified some criteria for what a new paradigm might look like, which I will not comment on now,\n
  • And we offer 5 examples of theories that are consistent with a new paradigm, which I will also not comment on. \nThose with a more theoretical interest can read about this in the study.\n\n\n\n\n[\n
  • I’d like to go directly to the question of the kinds of changes that we recommend in what leaders need to think, and do, and know, and the kinds of cultures that are supportive.\n\nWhatever the underlying paradigm, it is clear that the Web creates both pressures and incentives to develop new mindsets, skills, and knowledge, and to foster new cultures\n
  • One of the books published in Germany that we found very helpful is called „The Art of Letting Go.“ What the title refers to is the fact that behavior is driven by mindsets. New leadership behavior will only come from shifts in underlying mindsets. The editors of that book feel, and we agree, that the shift rquired to deal with the world that is coming is a shift from the need to control to „the art of letting go.“ \n\nWhat is needed is a “collaborative mind-set,” enabling “inclusive decision-making” and “genuine solicitation of feedback” \n
  • Some familiar skills will be needed more than ever: These include interpersonal skills, coaching, team/group facilitation , systems thinking\nBut some newer skills will also be needed. Examples are network leadership, leading “Millennials” \n
  • Web 2/0 literacy: Leaders must have personal knowledge and experience with Web 2.0, so that they understand the power and potential of tools such as Wikis, blogs, Text messages, Tweets, and social media websites such as Facebook \n\nCultural literacy: leaders must be aware of the assumptions of their own culture and sensitive to the reality that they must work with people who hold different cultural assumptions. This is true in two ways: \n1) customers, partners, even team members are more likely to come from a different culture.\n2) The Web is fostering a new culture, and Millenials will bring mindsets that push toward this culture\n
  • The culture that is emering has many features that are different. \nBut we liked the word that came from one of the IT people we interviewed, at the Bertelsmann Stiftung. He spoke of the need for a „Fehlerkultur,“ in which it was acceptable to make mistakes. \nThe model here is the „patch“ culture of software development, in which it is expected that there will be errors, or bugs. Software developers need others in the community to find and correct those errors. So too, anyone exercising leadership depends on s others finding and pointing out their errors, contributing to a better result.\n
  • We focused on the three traditional sectors, I want to focus in some detail on the Business sector, which I‘m assuming will be of greatest interest to you. \nBut it‘s worth giving a few highlights of the other sectors, because you see signs of transformation in each of them.\n
  • individuals organizations are increasingly “networked,” using the Web to enhance their effectiveness in attracting support, collaborating with organizations with similar missions, and soliciting stakeholder feedback to assess impact. \nSocial media enable self-organizing mobilization to emerge in response to crises and opportunities, requiring established organizations to collaborate more and more with individual “free agents.” \nAt the same time, such free agents—acting alone or in networks—are increasingly able to act on behalf of the public good without organizations as intermediaries. \nWhile beneficial for the health of the sector, this trend threatens existing social-sector institutions with obsolescence, unless they can demonstrate distinctive value. \nNonprofit organizations are also collaborating more with one another in response to greater pressure from funders to produce results and in response to the greater ease of collaboration made possible by the Web. \n
  • The Web has breathed new life into “Open Government” movements in a number of countries across the globe. At all levels of government, agencies in those countries are beginning to make information about their mission and spending more available, while seeking information from citizens to better meet public needs. \nPublic bureaucracies are becoming more transparent about their operations and decisions, not only to the public but to their employees and to other agencies as well. \nGovernment is acting more like business, treating the public as customers to be served and making itself more accountable for meeting the needs that those customers are now better able to articulate. \nTo this end, government institutions are increasingly forming “policy webs,” in which a wide range of stakeholders participate in the decision-making process. \nThe Web is beginning to enable more effective decision-making within bureaucracies and to link formerly unconnected or marginalized citizens in ways that facilitate “emergent democracy.”\n.\n
  • Increasingly, individuals and organizations are called to come together across sectoral boundaries, finding common cause in the effort to address “wicked” problems that defy solution from within any single sector\nThis new Commons is a critically important source of new leadership to address “stuck” problems at all levels. This fourth “sector” includes the following: \na range of cross-sector, “blended” initiatives, reflecting the goals of civil society and/or government goals while using the mechanisms of business, as well as business enterprises that have taken on explicit non-monetary goals to address social values;\n it includes multi-sector efforts to collaboratively address challenging problems not resolvable by any single sector and to form “megacommunities” of ongoing relationships; \nit also contains leadership by individuals acting as “free agents.” \nWe see this sector as continuing to become more and more significant, eventually subsuming to a large extent the discrete sectors\n
  • Now let‘s focus on the business sector\n
  • Andrew McAfee coined term „Enterprise 2.0“ to describe the impact of the Web in the business sector. \nDon Tapscott sees the emergenece of enteprises that are open and networked. He has identified a dozen areas of profouond change that are reflected in such enterprises. Here are 6 of them.\n
  • We found the biological concept of an „ecosystem“ being used frequently to describe emerging patterns of organization. Companies are evolving into such ecosytems, in which they both cooperate and compete with one another. Radically new relationships and business models are evolving.\nI‘m not going to go through the characteristics listed here, because I think you‘ll understand what I‘m talking about better through some examples that will come in a minute.\n
  • But I want to comment on the first bullet, and the last.\nThe term „platform“ keeps coming up. The most visible examples are Amazon and eBay, which offer platforms on which customers can build and offer their own value propositions. We‘ll see that in SAP, a case that I‘ll go into in more detail in just a few minutes\n\n[Two-way street: Companies work with their suppliers to directly add operational advantage through win-win processes. They don’t just define suppliers as services, but also define their own operations as services to the suppliers.\nKeystone species: they maintain the health of the ecosystem for the ultimately self-serving reason that their own survival depends on it\nNetworks of companies competing with one another This is a win/win arrangement that creates lower costs for consumers while creating new markets and diversifying risk for individual companies.\n“Prosumers” The Web makes it easier for customers to give feedback and participate in ways that effectively results in co-design of products. ]\n
  • I also want to call attention to the last bullet on this page:\n\nOne of the most useful concepts from complexity theory is the idea that the boundary between order and chaos is a very creative place. \nMany companies now find themselves operating at this boundary. It is a dangerous place stressful place, but an enormously creative one, as we will see in the patterns and examples soon to come....\n
  • One last phenomenon, which is both a challenge and an opportunity\n\nOpportunities. New design software programs allow a single person, working out of their home, to design a product, send the design to a company like Shapeways, which will produce it using 3-D “printing,” and then mail it back. This is good news for customers (who get better service and lower prices) entrepreneurs (who have an expanded menu of options), and even society as a whole (through greater productivity). \n\nChallenges: But it is bad news for companies wedded to traditional ways of doing things, as they face new threats that are likely to reduce market share, profits, and even put them out of business. \n
  • We identified 8 patterns, and offer about 30 examples\n\nLet me give some illustrations of 6 of these\n\n\n \n\n
  • Alcatel-Lucent in Germany has created an internal YouTube, on which the most watched video shows an employee explaining the firm’s strategy. The Chair of the Board Alf Henryk has said “We are learning from the ‘Generation Internet’ how to communicate, inform ourselves, and collaborate in a ‘totally networked’ way.” \n\n \n\n
  • Premier Farnell plc, a UK-based multinational marketer and distributor of electronic products to engineers, distributed several thousand video cameras among 4,100 employees, encouraging them to record their best practices and upload the video to an internal site, called OurTube . Employee contributions were not screened, which has reportedly brought about a profound change in the company culture (Li, p. 32).\n\n\n
  • “Open source.” projects such as the computer software system Linux lower the cost of failure. Clay Shirky concludes from this and similar examples that “services that tolerate failure as a normal case create a kind of value that is simply unreachable by institutions that try to ensure the success of most of their efforts” (2008, pp. 237-243).\n\n\n
  • Alcatel-Lucent, Siemens and Unilever have all used InnoCentive as a broker for crowdsourcing solutions to R&D challenges (Williams 2010a, 5). The company provides access to 160,000 problem solvers (including retired, unemployed, or aspiring scientists) in 175 countries. \nSimilarly The German startup Atizo administers and markets a web-community of creative thinkers with specialized expertise. \n\n\n\n
  • \n\n
  • \n\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • The premier example of Web Applications is probably Cisco, based in the U.S.\n
  • Collaborative channel the company now sees itself as just one of many nodes within a much more expansive universe of business relationships. Technologies such as WebEx and AXP, a new Linux-based development platform for integrated services routers, are examples of open platforms that allow partners to join a technology development program of over 400 developers and co-innovate new applications and offerings on top of Cisco products (Tapscott, 2008b, p.11).\nMeetings \nCisco held a Q3 Company Meeting in February 2009 that was held virtually on Cisco TV, its internal channel\nCEO John Chambers also used TelePresence to meet with a dozen customers in Russia. Meetings that would have taken 96 hours (including travel time) now take 8 hours, enabling Chambers to meet with twice as many customers and cut his travel schedule in half.\nChanges in org structure to move decision making down and making it more inclusive. \nNine councils of about 16 executives each report to the top team.\n50 boards report to the councils. \nAbout 750 executives are on the councils and boards, participating in such strategic decisions are acquisitions, entry of new markets, and creation of new products.‚\n
  • SAP was founded 25 years ago by a former group of IBM engineers and is located in the small rural town of Walldorf, Germany. Yet it has grown to be the fourth largest software company in the world. \nIt creates the big company-wide software applications that today’s firms use to run most of what they do. \nThe software industry started to go through a wrenching change earlier in this decade as it moved from large, complex, tightly integrated application software to much more loosely coupled modules of software embedded in service-oriented architectures. SAP’s success had been driven by the previous generation of software, but\nIt embraced this next wave of software architecture by introducing its NetWeaver platform in early 2003—software that fit on top of and around its existing enterprise applications, helping them talk to each other and to non-SAP applications. \nSAP ran into a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma: the product’s full potential wouldn’t become apparent until customers began using it and discovering what it could do. SAP did not have the resources to train the entire customer base—let alone educate tens of thousands of systems integrator consultants.\nAn SAP executive board member Shai Agassi came up with a great idea: why not let all of SAPs customers, systems integrators, and independent service vendors teach each other about NetWeaver, peer to peer, as they learned to use it? The result was the SAP development Network (SDN), a broad ecosystem of participants\n“\n
  • In one stroke, SAP went beyond the limitation of its own resources to access a broad network of talented and passionate participants who proved to be crucial to the platform’s success. \nThe SDN community grew quickly and powerfully, and, as it did, SAP established NetWeaver with its customers and third-party vendors. SAP’s Developer Network and its related ecosystem initiative created a rich network of 1.3 million participants contributing to more than 1 million separate topics of conversations. SDN provided ample opportunity for nearly everybody involved to become more productive in what they do. \n
  • It was founded in 1996 as a spin-off from the University of Hamburg. CoreMedia was recognized along with BMW in 2004 as “Best Innovator” among German small and medium-sized companies\nBut CEO Sorens Stamer faced what he called an “existential challenge”: How can one stay in control when the market, the technologies in use, global competition, and society itself is changing at an ever-increasing rate?” (Stamer, 2008, p. 133).\nHe decided that the company needed to “let go” of its traditional approach to management and embrace the social networking culture of “Enterprise 2.0.” \nCore media created an online platform features many forms of social media (wikis, blogs, tags, rating systems, and microblogging tools). The platform helps maintain porous corporate boundaries, which enable information exchange and dialogue among staff, customers, and partners. The company found that “the continual dialogue concerning requirements and technical possibilities generates both ideas and expertise for innovations.”\nThe firm’s traditional hierarchy has been replaced by a flexible, highly networked structure, where individuals provide collective input to steer the firm. Top management retains responsibility for making decisions, but uses the firm’s collective intelligence as it does so.\n
  • At least as important as tools is a company culture that values transparency, openness, non-hierarchical, team-based organizing. The CEO strives to set the tone by welcoming feedback and criticism. \nThis culture is cultivated by softer technologies such as “open space” meetings, which enable a high degree of participation and choice, as a way of coupling individual passion with company needs and opportunities. \n
  • We offer a thought process for determining how your organization should position itself with respect to these new tools, and more basically, to this new culture. \n
  • The key idea here is making a strategic decision about how open you want to be as a company, then designing an internet strategy in support of that strategy.\n\n(recognizing that surprising opportunities may emerge!)\n
  • And we outline 7 steps you might consider for adopting web tools and culture, regardless of the level of openness.\n
  • \n#3\nAt the unstructured extreme end of the continuum is Zappos, which has no policies at all, but instead relies on a rigorous training program to instill company values. \n\nSimilarly, Microsoft allowed employees to begin blogging constrained only by an informal policy consisting of respecting confidentiality and being “a rational, thinking person.” \n\nBy contrast, most organizations are far more distrusting. A survey in 2009 indicated that slightly over half of companies block use of social mediate sites altogether. \n
  • \n#7 It would seem natural to let the IT department play a leading role in thinking through and implementing a social media policy. \nAnd that may make sense \n\nBut in many, perhaps most cases we believe that would be a mistake. IT professionals and people who are innovative on the Web tend to be very different\n\nBertelsmann Senior Project Manager Ole Wintermann commented on this distinction. \n“Web people are interested in content, to move things forward. IT people are focused more on tools. Web 2.0 is more about mindsets, but the IT department thinks IT is the essential part. Web 2.0 people see things emerging from chaos. IT people are structured engineers, working from a manual. Web people challenge the limits that the IT people see. But what is important: Both groups are needed for getting a better result in cooperation.”\n
  • We originally opened the study with a history of web tools. But we decided it was more appropriate to put this in the appendix, in order to call attention to the underlying shifts in mindset and culture\n
  • \nObservers differ as to whether they see the glass half full or half empty.\nNo one can be sure\nAnd it’s clear there are downsides to the Web: many risks and potential threats\nBut we side with the optimists. This is a remarkable era, of tremendous opportunity\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • Transcript

    • 1. The Leadership Implications of theEvolving WebGrady McGonagill, Ed.D.AMcGonagill Consulting Massachusetts Bay Organization Development Learning GroupJanuary 19, 2011
    • 2. Leadership Implications of the Evolving Web Study  Context: - Bertelsmann Stiftung Leadership Series  Motivation: - Document innovative examples of Web 2.0 tool applications  Methology: - Review of books/articles, Web - Expert interviews  Focus: - Individual sectors (business, government, social) - InternationalMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 2
    • 3. “Aha - Moments”  The Web is bringing about a revolution with few precedents  Its impact is in the form of new mindsets and culture more than new tools  Implications for leadership: a new paradigm  Implications for organizing: a new sector—a 21st Century Virtual Commons  Most intriguing new concept: “emergence”Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 3
    • 4. Need for New Leadership Paradigm: 7 Indicators Leadership as an activity rather than a role Recognition of leadership as a collective process From organization-centric to network-centric leadership From organizations as “machines“ to organizations as “organisms“ From planning and controlling to learning and adaptation Need for new levels of leadership capacity From Generation X to Generation YMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 4
    • 5. Need for New Leadership Paradigm: 7 Indicators Leadership as an activity rather than a role Recognition of leadership as a collective process From organization-centric to network-centric leadership From organizations as “machines“ to organizations as “organisms“ From planning and controlling to learning and adaptation Need for new levels of leadership capacity From Generation X to Generation YMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 5
    • 6. Need for New Leadership Paradigm: 7 Indicators Leadership as an activity rather than a role Recognition of leadership as a collective process From organization-centric to network-centric leadership From organizations as “machines“ to organizations as “organisms“ From planning and controlling to learning and adaptation Need for new levels of leadership capacity From Generation X to Generation YMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 6
    • 7. Need for New Leadership Paradigm: 7 Indicators Leadership as an activity rather than a role Recognition of leadership as a collective process Need for new levels of leadership capacity From organization-centric to network-centric leadership From organizations as “machines“ to organizations as “organisms“ From planning and controlling to learning and adaptation From Generation X to Generation YMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 7
    • 8. Need for New Leadership Paradigm: 7 Indicators Leadership as an activity rather than a role Recognition of leadership as a collective process Need for new levels of leadership capacity From organization-centric to network-centric leadership From organizations as machines to organizations as organisms From planning and controlling to learning and adaptation From Generation X to Generation YMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 8
    • 9. Need for New Leadership Paradigm: 7 Indicators Leadership as an activity rather than a role Recognition of leadership as a collective process Need for new levels of leadership capacity From organization-centric to network-centric leadership From organizations as machines to organizations as organisms From planning and controlling to learning and adaptation From Generation X to Generation YMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 9
    • 10. Need for New Leadership Paradigm: 7 Indicators Leadership as an activity rather than a role Recognition of leadership as a collective process Need for new levels of leadership capacity From organization-centric to network-centric leadership From organizations as machines to organizations as organisms From planning and control to sensing, adaptating, and learning From Generation X to Generation YMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 10
    • 11. Need for New Leadership Paradigm: 7 Indicators Leadership as an activity rather than a role Recognition of leadership as a collective process Need for new levels of leadership capacity From organization-centric to network-centric leadership From organizations as “machines“ to organizations as “organisms“ From planning and controlling to learning and adaptation From Generation X to Generation YMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 11
    • 12. Criteria for a New Paradigm  Adaptive  Supportive of emergence  Cognizant of complexity  Integral  Outcome-orientedMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 12
    • 13. New Paradigms: 5 Examples  Action Inquiry  Adaptive Leadership  CCL’s DAC model  Integral Leadership  Theory U Page 13Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill
    • 14. Developing New Mindsets, Skills, Knowledge, Cultures  Mindsets: from the need to control to the “art of letting go”  Skills: - Old: interpersonal skills, coaching, team/group facilitation, systems thinking - New: network leadership, leading “Millennials“  Knowledge: Web 2.0 literacy, cultural literacy  Culture: “Fehlerkultur “ Page 14Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 14
    • 15. Developing New Mindsets, Skills, Knowledge, Cultures  Mindsets: from the need to control to the “art of letting go”  Skills: - Old: interpersonal skills, coaching, team/group facilitation, systems thinking - New: network leadership, leading “Millennials“  Knowledge: Web 2.0 literacy, cultural literacy  Culture: “Fehlerkultur ” Page 15Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 15
    • 16. Developing New Mindsets, Skills, Knowledge, Cultures  Mindsets: from the need to control to the “art of letting go”  Skills: - Old: interpersonal skills, coaching, team/group facilitation, systems thinking - New: network leadership, leading “Millennials“  Knowledge: Web 2.0 literacy, cultural literacy  Culture: “Fehlerkultur ” Page 16Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 16
    • 17. New Leadership Approaches: Developing New Mindsets, Skills, Knowledge, Cultures Mindsets: from the need to control to the “art of letting go“ Skills: - Old: interpersonal skills, coaching, team/group facilitation, systems thinking - New: network leadership, leading “Millennials“ Knowledge: Web 2.0 literacy, cultural literacy Culture: “Fehlerkultur ” Page 17Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 17
    • 18. New Leadership Approaches: Developing New Mindsets, Skills, Knowledge, Culture  Mindsets: from the need to control to the “art of letting go“  Skills: - Old: interpersonal skills, coaching, team/group facilitation, systems thinking - New: network leadership, leading “Millennials“  Knowledge: Web 2.0 literacy, cultural literacy  Culture: “Fehlerkultur ” Page 18Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 18
    • 19. The (Organizational) Impact of the Web by Sector 1. Business Sector 2. Social Sector 3. Government Sector 4. A 21st Century “Commons“ Page 19Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 19
    • 20. The (Organizational) Impact of the Web by Sector 1. Business Sector 2. Social Sector 3. Government Sector 4. A 21st Century “Commons“ Page 20Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 20
    • 21. The (Organizational) Impact of the Web by Sector 1. Business Sector 2. Social Sector 3. Government Sector 4. A 21st Century “Commons“ Page 21Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 21
    • 22. The (Organizational) Impact of the Web by Sector 1. Business Sector 2. Social Sector 3. Government Sector 4. A 21st Century “Commons“ Page 22Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 22
    • 23. Business Sector  Challenges and Opportunities  Examples and Patterns  Cases Page 23Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 23
    • 24. Challenges and Opportunities  “Enterprise 2.0”: The “Open, Networked Enterprise,” reflecting changes in… - Corporate boundaries (from closed, vertically integrated to open, networked) - Innovation (from closed, within company to open, including co-creation with customers and drawing ideas from a global brain trust) - Marketing (from one-way “push” strategies to two-way conversations) - IT capacity (from company-based to the resource pool of the Cloud) - Intellectual property (from proprietary and protected to open and shared) - Knowledge (from “stocks,” such as books and libraries, to “flows,” such as conversations in which contextually relevant information and tacit knowledge are exchanged) Page 24Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 24
    • 25. Challenges and Opportunities  New Ecosystems of Competition and Cooperation, in which… - Enterprises offer customers not just a product or service, but a platform capability upon which they can build their own value propositions - Relationships are a two-way street - Companies mimic the biological example of “keystone species” that proactively maintain the health of the entire ecosystem - Networks of businesses now compete with one another - Customers act as “Prosumers” (Producers and Consumers) - Companies operate “on the edge of chaos” Page 25Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 25
    • 26. Challenges and Opportunities  New Ecosystems of Competition and Cooperation, in which… - Companies offer customers not just a product or service, but a platform capability upon which they can build their own value propositions - Relationships are a two-way street - Companies mimic the biological example of “keystone species” that proactively maintain the health of the entire ecosystem - Networks of businesses now compete with one another - Customers act as “Prosumers” (Producers and Consumers) - Companies operate “on the edge of chaos” Page 26Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 26
    • 27. Challenges and Opportunities  New Ecosystems of Competition and Cooperation, in which… - Companies offer customers not just a product or service, but a platform capability upon which they can build their own value propositions - Relationships are a two-way street - Companies mimic the biological example of “keystone species” that proactively maintains the health of the entire ecosystem - Networks of businesses now compete with one another - Customers act as “Prosumers” (Producers and Consumers) - Companies operate “on the edge of chaos” Page 27Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 27
    • 28. Challenges and Opportunities  The “New Industrial Revolution”… - Enables entrepreneurs to compete with established businesses by combining technological innovations with Web-enabled virtual networks - Brings good news for entrepreneurs, consumers, society - Brings bad news for established companies threatened with new, lean competitors Page 28Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 28
    • 29. Patterns and Examples  Communication between employees and management  Communication among employees  Efficiencies within companies  Relationships between companies and talent outside the company  Relationships between companies and customers  Relationships between companies and suppliers  Relationships among companies  Ecosystems of partners, suppliers and customers Page 29Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 29
    • 30. Patterns and Examples  Communication between employees and management  Communication among employees  Efficiencies within companies  Relationships between companies and talent outside the company  Relationships between companies and customers  Relationships between companies and suppliers  Relationships among companies  Ecosystems of partners, suppliers and customers Page 30Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 30
    • 31. Patterns and Examples  Communication between employees and management  Communication among employees  Efficiencies within companies  Relationships between companies and talent outside the company  Relationships between companies and customers  Relationships between companies and suppliers  Relationships among companies  Ecosystems of partners, suppliers and customers Page 31Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 31
    • 32. Patterns and Examples  Communication between employees and management  Communication among employees  Efficiencies within companies  Relationships between companies and talent outside the company  Relationships between companies and customers  Relationships between companies and suppliers  Relationships among companies  Ecosystems of partners, suppliers and customers Page 32Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 32
    • 33. Patterns and Examples  Communication between employees and management  Communication among employees  Efficiencies within companies  Relationships between companies and talent outside the company  Relationships between companies and customers  Relationships between companies and suppliers  Relationships among companies  Ecosystems of partners, suppliers and customers Page 33Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 33
    • 34. Patterns and Examples  Communication between employees and management  Communication among employees  Efficiencies within companies  Relationships between companies and talent outside the company  Relationships between companies and customers  Relationships between companies and suppliers  Relationships among companies  Ecosystems of partners, suppliers and customers Page 34Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 34
    • 35. Patterns and Examples  Communication between employees and management  Communication among employees  Efficiencies within companies  Relationships between companies and talent outside the company  Relationships between companies and customers  Relationships between companies and suppliers  Relationships among companies  Ecosystems of partners, suppliers and customers Page 37Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 37
    • 36. Cases ─ Cisco ─ SAP ─ Core Media Page 38Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 38
    • 37. Cisco  Web-enabled platform ,supporting a “collaborative channel” of communication within an ecosystem of stakeholders (employees, customers, competitors)  Web tools for faster, cheaper, greener meetings  Changes in organizational structure to distribute decision-making, innovate faster, bring products to market sooner Page 39Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 39
    • 38. SAP  From small company in Walldorf, Germany to 4th largest software company in the world, in 25 years  Creates company-wide software applications  Had to cope with wrenching industry change: moving from large, tightlyintegrated application software to more looselycoupled modules  Introduced Netweaver in 2003 to integrate existing enterprise applications  Dilemma: how to encourage adoption of a radically new, complex product  Solution: SAP Development Network (SDN) Page 40Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 40
    • 39. Core Media  Hamburg-based supplier of content-management software  Dilemma: “How to stay in control when the market, the technologies in use, global competition, and society itself is changing at an ever- increasing rate?”  Solution: “Let go” of traditional approach to management and embrace the social-networking culture of Enterprise 2.0  Online platform featuring many forms of social media, to enable exchange among staff, customers, partners  Traditional hierarchy replaced by a flexible, highly networked structure  Fostered a culture valuing transparency, openness, non-hierarchical, team-based organizing, upward feedback and criticism  Employed “open-space” facilitation tools to couple individual passion with company needs and opportunitiesMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 42
    • 40. Exploring the Implications for Leadership in Organizations  Determining how your organization should position itself  Encouraging your organization to respond strategically 1. Gain personal Web literacy and foster it on your team 2. Encourage a long-term thinking process that addresses Web strategies 3. Encourage your organization to develop policies on use of social media 4. Encourage someone in the C-Suite of your organization to initiate a blog 5. Help your organization anticipate/address barriers to open leadership and use of Web tools 6. Encourage your human relations, marketing and communications departments to experiment with social media 7. Discourage ownership of Web strategies by your IT departmentMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 44
    • 41. Exploring the Implications for Leadership in Organizations  Determining how your organization should position itself  Encouraging your organization to respond strategically 1. Gain personal Web literacy and foster it on your team 2. Encourage a long-term thinking process that addresses Web strategies 3. Encourage your organization to develop policies on use of social media 4. Encourage someone in the C-Suite of your organization to initiate a blog 5. Help your organization anticipate/address barriers to open leadership and use of Web tools 6. Encourage your human relations, marketing and communications departments to experiment with social media 7. Discourage ownership of Web strategies by your IT departmentMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Seite 45
    • 42. Exploring the Implications for Leadership in Organizations  Determining how your organization should position itself  Encouraging your organization to respond strategically 1. Gain personal Web literacy and foster it on your team 2. Encourage a long-term thinking process that addresses Web strategies 3. Encourage your organization to develop policies on use of social media 4. Encourage someone in the C-Suite of your organization to initiate a blog 5. Help your organization anticipate/address barriers to open leadership and use of Web tools 6. Encourage your human relations, marketing and communications departments to experiment with social media 7. Discourage ownership of Web strategies by your IT departmentMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Page 46
    • 43. Exploring the Implications for Leadership in Organizations  Determining how your organization should position itself  Encouraging your organization to respond strategically 1. Gain personal Web literacy and foster it on your team 2. Encourage a long-term thinking process that addresses Web strategies 3. Encourage your organization to develop policies on use of social media 4. Encourage someone in the C-Suite of your organization to initiate a blog 5. Help your organization anticipate/address barriers to open leadership and use of Web tools 6. Encourage your human relations, marketing and communications departments to experiment with social media 7. Discourage ownership of Web strategies by your IT departmentMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Page 47
    • 44. Exploring the Implications for Leadership in Organizations  Determining how your organization should position itself  Encouraging your organization to respond strategically 1. Gain personal Web literacy and foster it on your team 2. Encourage a long-term thinking process that addresses Web strategies 3. Encourage your organization to develop policies on use of social media 4. Encourage someone in the C-Suite of your organization to initiate a blog 5. Help your organization anticipate/address barriers to open leadership and use of Web tools 6. Encourage your human relations, marketing and communications departments to experiment with social media 7. Discourage ownership of Web strategies by your IT departmentMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Page 48
    • 45. Appendix We offer a comprehensive and detailed overview of Web tools in the context of its brief history - Web 1.0 - Web 2.0 - Web 3.0 etc.Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Page 49
    • 46. Is the Glass half-full or half-empty? The ultimate impact of the Web is not knowable There are clearly a variety of risks and threats We side with the optimistsMassachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill Page 50
    • 47. “A door like this has cracked open five or six times since we got upon our hind legs. It’s the best possible time to be alive, when almosteverything you thought you knew is wrong.” r 2010 Spoken by the character Valentine Coverly in Tom Stoppard’s play Arcadia. Page 51
    • 48. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION• What is your personal experience of how client organizations are changing as a result of the Web and how leaders are responding?• What do you2010 as the implications for consultants and r see coaches who work with leaders as they confront these changes?• What challenges/dilemmas do you personally face as an OD practitioner as a result of the impact of the Web? Page 52
    • 49. Evaluation What I got/learned What I most enjoyed What could have been better Value to me (scale of 1-5) Further comments Page 53Massachusetts Bay Learning Group January 19, 2011 Grady McGonagill

    ×