The Bush Administration typifies last century's business culture: command and control, centralized decision making by an exclusive group of loyal insiders, driven by ideology and arrogance. Just watch Rick Wagoner operate and you see the Bush of business. It is obvious where GM is going (oblivion).
Obama is the best example of the new generation of leadership, the antidote to Bush-style government and business. For starters he has globality in his genes. His style is open, collaborative and inclusive. During the elections he effectively mobilized and engaged millions (by leveraging Web 2.0 technology). He believes that the economy can be brought back on track through innovation. Over the last weeks he worked closely with the House to create a $825 billion economic recovery plan, that includes money for education, infrastructure, energy investments and basic research, besides emergency spending for unemployment benefits, health care and food aid. His inauguration speech was sober and grounded in realism and pragmatism. Instead of talking in terms of “for us or against us”, he sees that there are no clear cut enemies, rather a “far-reaching network of violence and hatred”. He mentioned the need of close collaboration with other countries to solve the evil trinity of recession, terror an global warming.
While many business people worry about impending protectionism, his “Blue Print for Change” can not be clearer: “There are some who believe that we must try to turn back the clock on this new world; that the only chance to maintain our living standards is to build a fortress around America; to stop trading with other countries, shut down immigration, and rely on old industries. I disagree. Not only is it impossible to turn back the tide of globalization, but efforts to do so can make us worse off. Rather than fear the future, we must embrace it. I have no doubt that America can compete — and succeed — in the 21st century. And I know as well that more than anything else, success will depend not on our government, but on the dynamism, determination, and innovation of the American people.”
Obama is reactivating the American Dream. Let the USA again be an open place where talent from the whole world can come together, study, innovate and build companies. One of the reasons for the USA’s connection with the rest of the globe is its world class universities. Foreign students and immigrants account for almost 50 percent of all science researchers in the country. In 2006 they received 40 percent of all PhDs. By 2010, 75 percent of all science PhDs in this country will be awarded to foreign students. Those who earned their degrees in the US either stay in the US and tend to disproportionally contribute to the economic activity or they return to their home countries to establish and run companies that keep links with the US. Moreover, an open, well funded and competitive research environment has been the engine for much of the US growth, as major technology companies have sprung up around the major schools. Moreover, an open, well funded and competitive research environment has been the engine for much of the US growth, as leading technology companies have sprung up around the major schools, such as Stanford in Silicon Valley, the hot bed of technology with Google, Oracle, HP and Cisco, or MIT in the Boston Area, which has technology leaders like EMC. Dell is close to the University of Austin.
Obama's leadership style fits well with the post-recession business world. Successful companies in the next decade will have leadership that has more in common with Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt (who was on Obama's Transition Advisory Board), than the leaders of the three of Detroit. Here's a summary of the style differences (thanks to Henk Bos who contributed to this list):
On Jan 21 Obama published the following memo to the heads of agencies:
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/transparencymemo.pdf
"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public
trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."
Note the words: open, participation, collaboration, transparency...
It is very important that organizations understand the change in the socio-technical phenomenon that is going around us. Leadership style needs to keeps pace with this changing landscape. Obama understood and exploited both of them very well.
ReplyDeleteOrganizations can bring innovation not by mere technology advances but also by understanding how it intersects and fits in the social life of their target audience. For organizations like GM, their target audience had changed a generation and they were too late to recognize that. Apple, on other hand, was able to keep pace with the social shift and to-date remains a youth icon. I think, it has moved from being a 'technology company' to a 'fashion company'. Apple has clearly understood the 'Net Geners' and has embraced this cultural change into their products which sits at top of the intersection between the social and technical changes of this generation.
Each day since January 20 we have watched Obama take action to create a more open, transparent and collaborative presidency:
ReplyDeleteRelease presidential records and allow for a more open administration (Open)
Require hirees to sign a statement affirming that they were not offered the job for any political affiliation (Transparency)
Ban lobbyist gifts to executive employees (Transparency)
Appoint a Republican to the cabinet (Collaborative)
These actions are in stark contrast to the divisive politics of the past eight years.
The same actions translate into the corporate world where we should expect similar efforts towards open, collaborative and transparent leadership.
However, that still won't save us from the GM's of the world. We still have to find ways to create organizations that don't ever become "too big to fail". Do we really need a car company like GM? Would we suffer if it was broken into seven or eight companies? Might we have been better off with ten car companies than three? And three that are deemed too big to fail?
Not only do we need to encourage a new breed of leadership, but we also need new thinking to find its way into our corporate world. Our institutions have failed not just because of bad judgement, but also because they have focused on size and scale without addressing the fact that real growth and innovation happens at the edges in small, unique ways.
lui als ik ben, hier dan een reactie in het Nederlands. Zo'n lijstje met old en new suggereert van alles, speciaal dat Bush bij óld' hoort en Obama bij 'new'. Er zal ongetwijfeld verschil zijn, maar hoeveel weten we niet en we kunnen het alleen maar hopen. Dat de gevangenis op Guantanamo Bay wordt gesloten is nieuw.
ReplyDeleteDat de troepenmacht in Afhanistan wordt uitgebreid lijkt meer op het oude.
Terug naar het lijstje. Veel van de genoemde punten zijn ter discussie geweest in de afgelopen decennia. Het is zoals iedereen weet een voortdurende slingerbeweging met dit soort zaken.
Ik zal niet alle punten behandelen, maar er een paar uitpikken die mij interesseren.
Political party - movement. Ik weet niet wat een movement is, althans niet in relatie tot een politieke party. je kunt niet bedoelen dat Obama goed gebruik gemaak heeft van internet, want bij de volgende verkiezing zullen beide kandidaten dat doen. Obama zal blij zijn dat hij in staat is gesteld door de Democraten om op te gaan voor president. Gaan de politieke partijen verdwijnen?
Ideologie - pragmatisme. Obama lijkt me het schoolvoorbeeld van een ideoloog. Laten we wederom hopen dat hij daar pragmatisch mee omgaat. Wat is mis aan ideologie?, behalve als die niet in je straatje past?. Obama is een Godsvrezend mens. Wat gaat hij doen met euthansie? als hij pragmatisch is houdt hij er zijn mond over.
Centralized - decentralized. Geen decentralisatie zonder centralisatie. In Nederland weten we wat het betekent als je de centralisatie verwaarloost.
Hierarchy - egalitarian zie vorige opmerking
Cable television - YouTube. In het ene geval wordt het geregisteerd, in het ander geval heeft de hele wereld een mening. Ik heb verder niets tegen YouTube, maar ik prefereer meningen van mensen die echt iets te vertellen hebben.
Zo maar een paar opmerkingen die te vertalen zijn voor vele van de opgevoerde punten.
Nu neem ik aan dat je boek niet een propagandaverhaal wordt, zoals er zovelen zijn van zogenaamde wetenschappers die hun ei kwijt willen, maar dat het boek gestoeld wordt op afgewogen meningen. En pas op: meningen zijn geen bewijzen. je mag best een beetje overdrijven, maar doe het voorzichtig.
Pas op voor waarheden die al decennia lang verkondigd zijn. Voorbeeld: Bij veel organisatie zitten we met verouderde systemen die slecht zijn ontworpen. Dat is door velen de laatste tientallen jaren gesignaleerd. Dat dat nog zo is truerig; de vraag is waarom is dat niet verbeterd?
- In de matrix ontbreekt de rol van de overheid, voorwaar een niet onbelangrijk onderwerp, bijvoorbeeld in het licht van de huidige crisis.
- Pas op dat de lezer Obama identificeerd met het rechter rijtje. Dat zou ik volstrekte onzin vinden.
- Afgezien dat ik niet altijd begrijp wat in het rechter rijtje staat is het niet bewezen dat dat altijd werkt. Wat in het linker rijtje staat, werkt vaak/soms wel, afhankelijk van de situatie.
- Mij lijkt dat het rijtje goed te hanteren valt als je er bij zegt dat het een niet zonder het andere kan. Het gewicht op links of rechts is afhankelijk van de situatie.
Dear Jeroen,
ReplyDeleteI feel the vibe, it is incredible and uplifting this changeover. Obama is certainly decisive and swift in his decisions so far. I only hope we feel the same way in years to come. (when Blair came into office the feeling in Britain was revolutionary as well, and see what is left of it).
Obama's task is difficult and old habits, old views, old politics are hard if not impossible to change.
Nynke La Porte