ImagiLearning: Creating The Future of Learning
Someone has to create it...why not us?
Leadership in A Digital Culture
The work of ImagiLearning, Inc is to support the efforts of individuals and groups who are attempting to learn how to adapt to the emerging digital culture. In this age of change, we focus on the elements of that change, rather than on pushing a particular agenda or philosophy 'about' that change. With that understood, I want to attempt to address an issue that could easily be interpreted as having some 'political' agenda...but that is not my motivation. First, I don't have a political agenda. Secondly, I am full aware that if I DID blog a personal agenda, that would immediately alienate a portion of my audience, and market for ImagiLearning, Inc., and I'm not about to do that. This blog is about what I see as an outstanding example of the changes coming with the flattened, digital culture, so I take the risk of addressing it.
The digital culture consists of a flattening world (Tom Friedman), faced with exponential growth in technology (Ray Kurzweil), populated by citizens who are demanding higher levels of personal choice and individualized options for what they do, and when they do it (Prensky, Gee, Beck & Wade...and others). The days of having clear cut answers and packaged approaches to decision-making are gone. If you are a leader, unless you are in an orgranization that you own, have majority control of shares, or otherwise have unquestionable control over your "people", the traditional approaches to leading are going to get you in trouble. If you are attempting to lead an organization in the digital culture, an organization of people with diverse backgrounds, diverse learning preferences, individual needs for meaning and understanding, and individual needs to feel as if they are doing something with some real personal value, you must lead that organization in new ways.
As I write this, we are all sitting in a global classroom, watching one of the best case studies of digital leadership being played-out for us. The topic of this case study is Health Care, but the lesson underneath is all about leadership in a digital culture, plain and simple.
The ultimate stated goal of this case-study is to devise some process for redesigning the US health care industry to provide a more helpful approach to health care for all citizens. It's the kind of problem that corporations and organizations have faced for centuries; a mix of policy and practice. We have a wealth of books, and thousands of highly trained consultants and advisors who have resumes full of experience of doing this kind of work. In a non-digital culture.
That approach normally puts the ultimate solution in the hands of those "leaders" at the top of the orgranization. The smart one's made some effort to gather the opinions of their people, the others just made the decisions and 'passed them down' to the ranks. Billions of dollars were spent on massive studies and strategic task forces, all highly structured under specific "marching orders", and each tasked to find the "solution" for their piece of the puzzle. We've all been a part of organizations and have received those memos announcing that we have just signed on with yet another packaged "SOLUTION PROVIDER", and that assured us that this new approach would guide us to whatever solution was needed. Politically, this approach used political parties, platforms, committees, back rooms, cloak rooms, caucuses, PACS, and all of the other elements of the standard packaged political approach. Solutions were created by the "leaders", and announced in rousing speeches, usually accompanied with catchy names and slogans to win the emotional support of "the ranks". It's just how things were done. And, more than not, while the ranks frequently grumbled, that process worked. The ranks were different then.
In this particular case study however, the president applied a problem-solving strategy that has grown healthily in the corporate environment, but is something still very new for most digital culture leaders. Several months ago, the president announced that it was time to address health care, and then pretty much just threw the door open, saying, "OK, who has some good ideas?"
In the digital board room, that's when we roll in the white board or brainstorming software, and just start throwing ideas around. Good ones, bad ones, dumb ones...it doesn't matter. That's the primary rule of brainstorming, and the key to its effectiveness; get as many ideas out in front of you as possible, and THEN, and only then, start going through them sorting out the strengths and weaknesses of each. The end result is usually a compilation of several good ideas that is actually much stronger than any one of those individual thoughts. It works.
And it works well in a digital culture in which even the ranks want to have a voice and contribute to the decision-making. It plays well in a flat world. Through brainstorming, you hear the concerns of individuals from different social and economic backgrounds. You hear the concerns of those you agree with and of those you don't...but they are heard. And as the discussions progress with everyone involved, most of those participating actually do understand why the final decision ends up as it is. And even if they don't get everything they wanted originally, they were heard...it was fair...and they support the decision. It's good leadership in a digital culture.
But in today's case study, those who have built their careers on traditional political leadership practices did not follow the rules of brainstorming. As ideas were put up on the white board, they ran to their microphones and announced, "Look what the president is supporting NOW!" Rather than using the power of brainstorming to encourage the sharing of ideas, they used it as an opportunity to further their personal political agenda.
They stirred the emotions of their supporters, encouraging them to protest "ideas". They used their team radio talk hosts and tv personalities to portray "ideas" as "recommendations", to scare citizens who didn't understand. They paid a lot of money to fly groups of people around the country to attend and disrupt brainstorming townhall sessions. They openly announced that they would not vote for a health care proposal that came forward...UNLESS it included (or did not include) a key element. I most enjoyed those who actually announced that they would not support ANY proposal, because they wanted the president to fail, which would then help their party in the next election. THIS...this is analog leadership in a digital culture.
Again, my point is not to disparage a political party, because as we all know, these are practices used by each party when it is their turn. My question is how much longer this approach can actually be effective?
The brainstorming approach used by the president in this case study is a healthy approach for a diverse, digital culture. But the cost for traditional practices is high. It means being willing to listen to things you may not agree with, but are willing to hear and try to understand in new ways. It means putting some controls on our emotions, so we can look at what is underneath our likes and dislikes, and realize that OUR likes and dislikes are only one piece of the solution now. It means focusing on finding real best answers, and not focusing on protecting a party or a job. It means that you might not get your way.
I know that such comments always stirs the response that politicians HAVE to do what they do, and support the party, because the "American people" don't really understand issues and rely on emotion and vote accordingly. Actually "doing the right thing" might make some people unhappy, and they won't understand...so you will lose their vote.
That may have been true in an analog culture, but it is changing.
First, anyone who refers to "The American People" as if it is one, unified culture of opinion and belief is clearly showing that they are not living in the digital culture. This nation is highly diverse in every way possible, and there is no issue stance that represents the entire group. Secondly, citizens of the emerging digital culture WANT to understand, and spend hundreds of hours a week reading and filtering through a wide range of global information sources. They want real answers, and are less interested in just accepting ideas tied to a particular party.
The world is changing...and our nation is in the mix of it all.
Leaders in a digital culture must use new strategies to include more voices in the decision-making. They must make serious efforts to gather as many different ideas as possible, and THEN, begin sorting through them for best solutions. Digital leaders need to understand that old "followers" now insist on being participants, and have a real voice in sharing ideas and being heard. Digital leaders need to understand that the old "followers" are much better informed, and no longer accept your word as "truth" just because it came from a "leader".
The Health Care case study has reminded me that as we enter the digital age, there is a very clear distinction between "Leaders" and "Politicians". Leaders invite ideas - politicians provide ideas. Leaders listen to divergent opinions - politicians brand divergent opinions as dangerous, as dissension or a lack of loyalty, or even worse, as ignorance. Leaders are after solutions - politicians are after security. Leaders lead - politicians protect.
It leads me to wonder about the future of the political process in the emerging digital culture. Are we approaching a day in which the culture will no longer allow two political parties to continue their self-preservation, at the expense of finding real answers for real needs? What does "leadership" really look like in a digital culture?
The digital culture consists of a flattening world (Tom Friedman), faced with exponential growth in technology (Ray Kurzweil), populated by citizens who are demanding higher levels of personal choice and individualized options for what they do, and when they do it (Prensky, Gee, Beck & Wade...and others). The days of having clear cut answers and packaged approaches to decision-making are gone. If you are a leader, unless you are in an orgranization that you own, have majority control of shares, or otherwise have unquestionable control over your "people", the traditional approaches to leading are going to get you in trouble. If you are attempting to lead an organization in the digital culture, an organization of people with diverse backgrounds, diverse learning preferences, individual needs for meaning and understanding, and individual needs to feel as if they are doing something with some real personal value, you must lead that organization in new ways.
As I write this, we are all sitting in a global classroom, watching one of the best case studies of digital leadership being played-out for us. The topic of this case study is Health Care, but the lesson underneath is all about leadership in a digital culture, plain and simple.
The ultimate stated goal of this case-study is to devise some process for redesigning the US health care industry to provide a more helpful approach to health care for all citizens. It's the kind of problem that corporations and organizations have faced for centuries; a mix of policy and practice. We have a wealth of books, and thousands of highly trained consultants and advisors who have resumes full of experience of doing this kind of work. In a non-digital culture.
That approach normally puts the ultimate solution in the hands of those "leaders" at the top of the orgranization. The smart one's made some effort to gather the opinions of their people, the others just made the decisions and 'passed them down' to the ranks. Billions of dollars were spent on massive studies and strategic task forces, all highly structured under specific "marching orders", and each tasked to find the "solution" for their piece of the puzzle. We've all been a part of organizations and have received those memos announcing that we have just signed on with yet another packaged "SOLUTION PROVIDER", and that assured us that this new approach would guide us to whatever solution was needed. Politically, this approach used political parties, platforms, committees, back rooms, cloak rooms, caucuses, PACS, and all of the other elements of the standard packaged political approach. Solutions were created by the "leaders", and announced in rousing speeches, usually accompanied with catchy names and slogans to win the emotional support of "the ranks". It's just how things were done. And, more than not, while the ranks frequently grumbled, that process worked. The ranks were different then.
In this particular case study however, the president applied a problem-solving strategy that has grown healthily in the corporate environment, but is something still very new for most digital culture leaders. Several months ago, the president announced that it was time to address health care, and then pretty much just threw the door open, saying, "OK, who has some good ideas?"
In the digital board room, that's when we roll in the white board or brainstorming software, and just start throwing ideas around. Good ones, bad ones, dumb ones...it doesn't matter. That's the primary rule of brainstorming, and the key to its effectiveness; get as many ideas out in front of you as possible, and THEN, and only then, start going through them sorting out the strengths and weaknesses of each. The end result is usually a compilation of several good ideas that is actually much stronger than any one of those individual thoughts. It works.
And it works well in a digital culture in which even the ranks want to have a voice and contribute to the decision-making. It plays well in a flat world. Through brainstorming, you hear the concerns of individuals from different social and economic backgrounds. You hear the concerns of those you agree with and of those you don't...but they are heard. And as the discussions progress with everyone involved, most of those participating actually do understand why the final decision ends up as it is. And even if they don't get everything they wanted originally, they were heard...it was fair...and they support the decision. It's good leadership in a digital culture.
But in today's case study, those who have built their careers on traditional political leadership practices did not follow the rules of brainstorming. As ideas were put up on the white board, they ran to their microphones and announced, "Look what the president is supporting NOW!" Rather than using the power of brainstorming to encourage the sharing of ideas, they used it as an opportunity to further their personal political agenda.
They stirred the emotions of their supporters, encouraging them to protest "ideas". They used their team radio talk hosts and tv personalities to portray "ideas" as "recommendations", to scare citizens who didn't understand. They paid a lot of money to fly groups of people around the country to attend and disrupt brainstorming townhall sessions. They openly announced that they would not vote for a health care proposal that came forward...UNLESS it included (or did not include) a key element. I most enjoyed those who actually announced that they would not support ANY proposal, because they wanted the president to fail, which would then help their party in the next election. THIS...this is analog leadership in a digital culture.
Again, my point is not to disparage a political party, because as we all know, these are practices used by each party when it is their turn. My question is how much longer this approach can actually be effective?
The brainstorming approach used by the president in this case study is a healthy approach for a diverse, digital culture. But the cost for traditional practices is high. It means being willing to listen to things you may not agree with, but are willing to hear and try to understand in new ways. It means putting some controls on our emotions, so we can look at what is underneath our likes and dislikes, and realize that OUR likes and dislikes are only one piece of the solution now. It means focusing on finding real best answers, and not focusing on protecting a party or a job. It means that you might not get your way.
I know that such comments always stirs the response that politicians HAVE to do what they do, and support the party, because the "American people" don't really understand issues and rely on emotion and vote accordingly. Actually "doing the right thing" might make some people unhappy, and they won't understand...so you will lose their vote.
That may have been true in an analog culture, but it is changing.
First, anyone who refers to "The American People" as if it is one, unified culture of opinion and belief is clearly showing that they are not living in the digital culture. This nation is highly diverse in every way possible, and there is no issue stance that represents the entire group. Secondly, citizens of the emerging digital culture WANT to understand, and spend hundreds of hours a week reading and filtering through a wide range of global information sources. They want real answers, and are less interested in just accepting ideas tied to a particular party.
The world is changing...and our nation is in the mix of it all.
Leaders in a digital culture must use new strategies to include more voices in the decision-making. They must make serious efforts to gather as many different ideas as possible, and THEN, begin sorting through them for best solutions. Digital leaders need to understand that old "followers" now insist on being participants, and have a real voice in sharing ideas and being heard. Digital leaders need to understand that the old "followers" are much better informed, and no longer accept your word as "truth" just because it came from a "leader".
The Health Care case study has reminded me that as we enter the digital age, there is a very clear distinction between "Leaders" and "Politicians". Leaders invite ideas - politicians provide ideas. Leaders listen to divergent opinions - politicians brand divergent opinions as dangerous, as dissension or a lack of loyalty, or even worse, as ignorance. Leaders are after solutions - politicians are after security. Leaders lead - politicians protect.
It leads me to wonder about the future of the political process in the emerging digital culture. Are we approaching a day in which the culture will no longer allow two political parties to continue their self-preservation, at the expense of finding real answers for real needs? What does "leadership" really look like in a digital culture?
Tags: care, culture, digital, health, leadership, politics, president
Comment
-
Comment by Jim Sutton (Jeff Oatsmill) on October 30, 2009 at 8:31am - You make a number of good points here. "...the lesson underneath is all about leadership in a digital culture, plain and simple." I don't think the principles of leadership change much with a digital culture, but the way you do it changes.
-
Comment by Philip J. Power (Ozzie Paule) on September 16, 2009 at 9:14am -
Great post John about such an important case study. I agree that the core elements of true leadership definitely transcend politics, economics and national boundaries in our digital, global world where everyone is connected in so many ways. I propose that everyone has leadership potential and any outstanding leader must also be an outstanding "follower" who can fully appreciate (and live) the impact of real viewpoints and real decisions. Any leader who pretends to "know it all" or who states "I did it myself" or "you must agree with my viewpoint" is actually delusional and has totally lost touch with our fast-evolving digital culture.
I continually remind myself of the power and necessity for "taking a dose of humility" and "checking my ego at the door". The more we can all see ourselves as integral part of the collective "we" in our flattened world, then the more society as a whole will benefit. We are all "special" and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity by every part of our global society.
About
To Our Website
Latest Activity
Intro to the ImagiLearning Logic System - 5pm SLT/PT at http://slurl.com/secondlife/imagiLEARNING/88/29/21/
January 5, 2010 from 7pm to 8pm
A one hour overview and intro to our tool that lets you create branched, decision-based activities in Second Life..without any scripting.
We will use SLvoice for this session. If you do not use voice, contact us for an individual intro!
IBM Analytics Virtual Center: http://bit.ly/ibmavc
© 2010 Created by John Jamison on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of ImagiLearning: Creating The Future of Learning to add comments!
Join this Ning Network