we_leadership - volume 05

8/7/2019 WE_Leadership - Volume 05

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/weleadership-volume-05 1/143

Who Is Leading WikiRevolutions? Don Tapscott About Leaders And Followers Gunter DueckLeading A Culture Of Innovation Ken RobinLeading From The Edge John Hagel III Leadership In A Flat Organization J.P. Rangaswami Leadership Must Walk The Talk! Martin SpiA Wake-up Call For Despots Lee Bryant Political Leadership Goes WE Sabine Donner You’ve Got To Be The Change You Want To See!Ismael KhatibRien ne va plus! So Let’s Start A New Game! Peter Kruse / Thomas Sattelberger Traditional Management Stopped Working!Luis Suarez / Stephen Denning What A Little Nuance Can Do! Itay Talgam Doing It The Wiki Way Frank RoebersWhen Brand And CorporateValues Meet! Hermann Demmel Facebooked? Klaus Doppler / Andreas NauThe Power Of Horse Sense: Leadership Through ValuesBeate Hausmann

we_special_ /

... in a networked woleadership



leadership ... in a networked worldwe_special_ /



Paul had digits thrust upon him.An old s chool freelance trans-lator, he was happily churningout stuff like expertises on coun-te rfeit Oscar statues before beinglassoed by a tribe of digitalnatives who appreciated hiswide knowledge of the pre-digital past, his dislike of jargon

and keen sense of what makesa shapely English sentence.

Tina is a project manager, animpresario of creative thought.She’s passionate about newapproaches to leadership andthe role of the Web in spurring

innovation and unleashing themaximum potential in anyorganization. She initiated andheads the Bertelsmann Stiftungleadership series with studies,master classes and a span ofvirtual activities.

we_team

Thank you to ...

Bertelsmanntiftung whoseenerosity firstade this issue

ossible. Theyave us theeative freedomlet this

agazine grow”.



Ulrike is consultant, author,visionary, free spirit and digitalnative rolled into one. Her beliefin the Internet’s ability to empo-wer people and change our livesand worlds for the better drivesall her work, whether it beinvestigating global megatrendsor establishing grassroots

self-help projects in Africa.

Gudrun is a hard workingwoman and mother. Work meanswriting. Education and healthare the issues she is passionateabout. She loves the idea of theWeb even though she has still totake the plunge. Let her workspeak for her – flip throughpages - and - .

Dominik is a creative plannerand media educator. But firstand foremost he´s an activist,intensely curious about humansand the tools shaping our future.He focuses on open and institu-tional innovation and its under-pinning processes, and alsodesigns and runs innovationcamps to find innovative waysto crack problems.

Bea is a graphic designer –marshaling words into lines andpages of print.



content CONVERSATIONS

Rien ne va plus!

So Let’s Start A New Game!

Peter Kruse/Thomas Sattelberger

Traditional Management

Stopped Working!

Stephen Dennning/Luis Suarez

POSITIONS

Who Is Leading

WikiRevolutions?

Don Tapscott

About Leaders And Followers

Gunter Dueck

Leading A Culture Of

Innovation

Ken Robinson

Leading From The Edge

John Hagel III

Leadership In A Flat

Organization

J.P. Rangaswami

Leadership Must Walk

The Talk!

Martin Spilker

AWake-up Call For Despots

Lee Bryant

Political Leadership Goes WE!

Sabine Donner

You’ve Got To Be The Change

You Want To See!

Isamel Khatib

Great Web Sites

For Leadership



CASES

What A Little Nuance Can Do!

Itay Talgam

Doing It The Wiki Way

Frank Roebers

When Brand And Corporate

Values Meet

Hermann Demmel

Facebooked?

Klaus Doppler/Andreas Nau

Re-thinking Leadership:

A Cloud

The Power Of Horse Sense

Beate Haussmann

QUOTES

editorial

In this issue we turn to the question of how the WE correlateswith leadership in a networked world. I think that the WE turnsleadership completely on its head. In a world in which the WEis in constant flow and highly connected, leadership modelswhich aren’t flexible in structure, speed and agenda will sim-ply fail.

What do I mean when I talk about WE? From a company pointof view the WE has many different faces, depending whereyou’re aiming at. It can be a department, a group, the wholecompany payroll, the management team or, if you cross thecompany borderline to the outside world, the WE may includeyour partners, your competitors, customers, unions … and yes,even the entire economy and society the company is embed-ded in. All these different WEs are connected and collaborateon various levels. They build multiple layers – and they do af-fect the company. Sometimes to the good, sometimes to thebad.

So understanding these WEs and reaping their full potentialto drive the company forward is a huge challenge for leaders.It’s essential to be aware of the core values that hold and bindthem together. As a leader you have to know the driving forcesbehind the WE. Only if you are in SYNC with them – or at leastif you have a feeling for which way the wind’s blowing –people will follow you. Empathy is all-important!Yet it’s just as important to know what drives the WEs in theseunpredictable moments of change when they join forces andset something very powerful in motion – network effects.Something we have just seen in Tunisia, Egypt or somethingof the kind Nestlé experienced with Greenpeace. So leaderstoday are challenged by these network effects – no matterwhether they’re in politics, business or society. It’s in the net-works themselves that leaders have to build their reputation.Leaders are no longer appointed; nowadays they are chosen.

In the following positions, conversations and cases you’ll hope-fully find more than just mere hints on how to navigate withinand between these various permutations of the WE, and on

how to manoeuvre safely through what can be uncertain andunpredictable waters. In order not just to survive these chal-lenges but to actually thrive on them, WE think a fundamentalshift in leadership is needed.

Imprint: Ulrike Reinhard | Faehrweg | Neckarhausen+ | [email protected]



uickhare

Don Tapscott

Gunter Dueck

Peter KruseJP Rangaswami

Sabine Donner

Thomas Sattelberger

Ken Robinson

Lee Bryant

Ismael Khatib



we_special_ /



we_special_ /

positions



we_special_ /

hrir Square, Cairo, March



Interview with Don Tapscott

There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come is a quote byAntoine de Saint-Exupéry that Don often uses in his talks. And the timehas come! The world is changing – and we can watch it change! Now that theinternet has slashed the costs of collaboration, companies, governments and people can very easyly and instantly connect and start something verypowerful. We truly enter a networked world with game changing principles.Don is saying that no matter if the changing system is a nation, a government,a company or a university, the five organizing principles of collaboration, open-ness, sharing, interdependency and integrity are still the same …

we_special_ /

Who Is LeadingWikiRevolutions?

# game changing principles, WikiRevolution, MacroWikinomics,horizontal government, transparency, integrity, collaboration

> related articles:John Hagel III (p. ), Lee Bryant (p. ), Sabine Donner (p. ), Frank Roebers (p. )



we_special_ /

Don Tapscott... is one of the world’s leading authorities on business strategy and innovation. He is the chairman of Moxie Insight and wasfounder and chairman of the international think tank New Paradigm before its acquisition by Moxie Insight. He is a fellowof the World Economic Forum and Adjunct Professor of Management at the Joseph L. Rotman School of Management,University of Toronto. Don is the author of 14 widely-read books including 2010’s Macrowikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World (co-authored by Anthony Williams).



we_special_ /

we_magazine:Don, let’s start with our WE-question. How has your under-standing of WE changed since the rise of the Internet?

Don Tapscott: You may remember when TimeMagazine published the Person of the Year and it was

“YOU”. Back then it was all about user-generated con-tent – content produced by “YOU”. Today they shouldmake it “WE” or “US” because it’s no longer aboutusers generating content, it’s about users collabora-ting. But more than that, it’s about creating some kindof collective intelligence. Together we can perhapseven create some kind of consciousness that trans-cends individual human beings.You see, in MacroWikinomics we’re talking about thefive organizing principles: collaboration, openness,sharing, interdependency and integrity. You can see

these principles being brought to bear on all kinds ofdifferent institutions. And even on nations, as we areseeing right now in the Middle East. We have seen thefall of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments and wedon’t know what’s next. You see people now collabo-rating together in a massive way, with enormouspower including the power to bring down autocraticgovernments! So the WE in these cases has becomepretty big and powerful.

we_magazine:

In your talk at lift11 you mentioned that in Egypt and Tunisia there were no leaders anymore leading this revolution…

Don Tapscott: Yes!

we_magazine:You call it a ’WikiRevolution’...

Don Tapscott: Well, it is a WikiRevolution. It’s my termfor a peer-produced revolt enabled by social media

and lacking a traditional vanguard. In a WikiRevolu-tion there are leaders but they change constantlydepending on the situation. You do know the Macro-Wikinomics video I put online: the murmuration ofstarlings. In it I ask whether companies, institutionsand governments can adapt to starlings’ behaviourand learn from their ability to manoeuvre “in a com-mon sense” as the flock turns and dives through theair. I think this can be done.

What we saw in Tunisia and Egypt and may see inmore Middle Eastern countries, wasn’t possible untilonly recently. Today with the Web it is possible and wehave these WikiRevolutions! What the Web does is itradically drops the transaction and collaboration costsof dissent and rebellion so large numbers of people

can come together as peers and do something extra-ordinary – including bring down a government.

we_magazine:But what does this mean for leadership? One of the biggest problems we are facing in Tunisia, and probably in Egypt aswell, is that there is some kind of power vacuum, a lack of opposition, “absence” of leadership – there is neither a leader in the revolution nor any organized structures, any kind of “so-called” opposition, who can take-over. How can leader-ship evolve? Is it indeed still needed?

Don Tapscott: It’s an extraordinary problem! Indeedthere is this huge vacuum and with that comes risk.The vacuum can be filled by the old regime comingback in. It can be filled by extremist elements like Is-lamists who can come in and destroy secular societyand democracy and take us back centuries. It’s a quiteastonishing problem. To me it means that the Westhas a big responsibility to make sure that there is arule of law to encourage the creation of some kind ofinterim government. It’s also important not to have

elections right away so as to give time for new groupsand parties to get organized and have a real chance ofwinning. We’ve seen this partially – even though theWest was hesitating to get heavily involved – whenPresident Obama in fact contacted Mubarak and said,“Look, you’ve got to move along, you’ve got to do thisin an orderly way or really bad things can happen.” Ofcourse Obama was right about that.It’s a nice change and also a challenge for US foreignpolicy …

we_magazine:It would be a nice change, yes indeed.Leadership in a networked world, what does it look like?Are we going to lose all kinds of hierarchy? What is thepicture you see Don?

Don Tapscott: That’s really an interesting question.One of the new ministers of the Tunisian government– whom I talked to in Davos – foresees that this hori-zontal revolution will lead to a much more horizontal



we_special_ /

government. That’s the term he used. Now he didn’treally explain what that means, but it’s a pretty juicyproposition. We’ve talked about this in MacroWiki-nomics and termed it government as a platform.Government as a network as opposed to an old indu-strial-age bureaucracy …

we_magazine:But isn’t that different from a platform?

Don Tapscott: Well they’re both. A platform is an in-stance of a network. We talk about network govern-ments whereby we network all kinds of capability insociety to create public value. One of the ways a net-work government can do that is by creating a platformwhere others can self- organize, and you create a plat-form by just creating raw data.

Governments provide data that enable individual, civilsociety organizations, private companies and othergovernments to create their own networks to dosomething. To solve a problem in society, to deliver aservice, rather than governments doing this by them-selves as they did in the past.

we_magazine:Where do collaboration and leadership meet?

Don Tapscott: The concept of leadership has changed

fundamentally.The downfall of the Tunisian government was broughtabout by a new kind of leadership, a collaborative, col-lective leadership. There was no great orator, no greatvisionary selling a vision. There were neither commandand control lines nor an executive responsible fororchestrating all this capability. It just happened. Andit happened almost overnight! We saw a new kind ofleader. Leaders who work together in networks, whounderstand that their own interests are consistentwith the interests of the many. We still need people

who stand up and inspire or motivate. We need supersmart people who provide leadership in a more tradi-tional sense, but increasingly they’ll lead through thepeople, not over the people.

we_magazine:How does transparency fit in with this concept?

Don Tapscott: Well, transparency is one of the princi-ples of these new network models. We need to buildtransparency into every institution whether it’s the fi-

nancial system or governments. Whether it’s a modelof science or education and so on. Transparency is agood thing – sunlight is the best disinfectant! Alsotransparency drops transaction costs, so you get bet-ter innovation, you get lower costs, you get thingshappening more quickly when you bake transparencyinto the DNA of any entity.

we_magazine:

How do you bake transparency into a company’s DNA?

Don Tapscott: For starters the CEO needs to drive this.A CEO sets the corporate culture by their own be-haviour whether they intend to or not. Companiesneed to default to transparency rather than opacityand to do this they need what I call a transparencystrategy. They need to think through what informationthey can be provided to customers, shareholders, em-ployees and business partners and why that would beof benefit. My book The Naked Corporation, writtenwith David Ticoll almost a decade ago shows how.

we_magazine:What about the correlations between hierarchies and networks?

Don Tapscott: Hierarchies won’t go away, not in mylifetime. But increasingly things get done in networks.In networks that go beyond the boundaries of thecorporation, so boundary decisions are very criticaland it’s a part of this strategy. Networks usually per-form better than traditional, vertically integrated cor-porations. The future is about networks, but there’sa big transitional period. Hierarchies still perform

certain functions. They’re a good way of organizingwork and labour and having certain accountabilitiesand responsibilities and so on, but increasingly they’renot going to be the modus operandi in the core archi-tectural principle of an enterprise that the network is.



we_special_ /

we_magazine:How do integrity and interdependency fit in with thisnetworked model of leadership?

Don Tapscott: If we are serious about rebooting busi-ness and the world, then we must not only be able to

talk innovation, but do innovation and do it fast. Everystakeholder involved must summon the courage andcreativity to reinvent themselves, using technologyand collaboration as an enabler, a catalyst and a driverof change. The goal is to provide better outcomes forcitizens and users. This is not about tinkering at theedges; this is about devising, living and experiencinga new model of innovation that is fit for the st cen-tury. The five principles we discussed earlier – open-ness, collaboration, sharing, interdependence andintegrity – should define how st century corpora-

tions, citizens and nations create value, compete andcollaborate together in a global marketplace and aglobal society. This is very different from the hierar-chical, closed, secretive and insular approach to we-alth creation, social development, politics andproblem solving that dominated the previous century.

we_magazine:Your message in MacroWikinomics is actually that youcan transfer these 5 organizing principles to any kind of field we’re living and working in.

Don Tapscott: Yes.

we_magazine:Is it really the same to run a company, a university or even a nation?

Don Tapscott: Of course not, but the organizing prin-ciples are the same!

We are going through fundamental change, not just

through some interesting set of changes. I think manyof these institutions have an industrial age architec-ture and modus operandi. They come out of the in-dustrial age. And what is going on today is not someaftermath of an economic slump or a big weird socialmedia revolution thing – it’s a turning point in historywhere we need to rebuild all of these institutions. Ofcourse science is very different from the energy grid,but the organizing principles for the new model arethe same – collaboration, openness, sharing intellec-

tual property, interdependency and integrity. We havea new communications media enabling us to rebuildthese institutions.

we_magazine:What kind of effect did the shutdown of the internet in

Egypt have?

Don Tapscott: Oh! That was clearly the end. Whenthey did that, if anyone was not sympathetic with theyoung protestors, it made them so. It was a statementon the lack of integrity on the part of the Government.Integrity is about being considerate about the inte-rests of others. It’s about abiding by your commit-ments and about being open, about being honest.When Mubarak shut down the internet, that was it.People just said, “You know this government is just not

acting like it’s interested. It just doesn’t have integrity.”

It’s just not a viable strategy to shut the internet downbecause increasingly the internet is a foundation forcommerce, for work, for learning, healthcare and so-cial discourse. Shutting down the internet will havethe impact on your own country of a successful andmassive general strike.

we_magazine:

So my last question is, if you had to name a couple of

companies who are really performing well in this networked world, which ones would you name and why?

Don Tapscott: Best Buy, certainly. It’s a company in abrutally competitive market place – consumer elec-tronics – during a huge economic recession. Theirmain competitor went bankrupt. Best Buy survivedand it is doing well. The reason they’re doing wellis because they’re empowering young people. No’WikiRevolution’ needed there! They used networksand they changed their business model. They are not

a retailer of consumer electronics any longer, they’rebecoming a company that builds relationships withconsumers where there’s a deep exchange of values.One of them being that people buy stuff and paymoney.

we_magazine:Thanks a lot.

Don Tapscott: My pleasure, as usual.



we_special_ /



Interview with Gunter Dueck

Dueck argues that you’re only a leader if the people you’re leading are followers, not meresubordinates and if you work together with them in pursuit of a vision. Asked about therole of Web 2.0 he’s rather critical and explains why Web 2.0 has yet to prove it’s scalable.In his wise and witty way, what he is demanding is nothing less than radical change in theway we lead our companies and nations.

we_special_ /

About Leaders AndFollowers

# follower, Machiavelli, vision, courage, persistence, creativity, Bluepedia,web .

> related articles:Ken Robinson (p. ), J.P. Rangaswami (p. ), Itay Talgam (p. ), Frank Roebers (p. )



we_special_ /

we_magazine:What does leadership mean for you?

Gunter Dueck: Work is roughly divided into two parts:change and run. One part – run the business – dealswith the smooth running of commercial affairs whilethe other – change the business – deals with moder-nization, change and innovation. On top of this there’sa metacomponent dealing with the way you work,manage, and bring about change, and this too is sub-ject to transformation, especially now in the age of

. . Leaders are the ones who set the way forward forthe company staff, innovation and transformation ofwork – and this is a path fraught with great uncer-tainty that is bound to be paved with many errors, andmuch hardship and trouble between the little triumphson the way. For me, you’re only a leader if the peopleyou’re leading are followers and not merely subordi-nates. To some extent, leadership always involvesbeing a trusted “father or mother”: the people youlead are also entrusted to your care.

we_magazine:In what sense entrusted to your care?

Gunter Dueck: That’s the way I see it but perhaps I’ma bit old fashioned! In my view the boss also takes careof their employees, tends to their well-being and pro-fessional advancement. In the future people are goingto have to take a great deal more work on board thathas to do with managing networks of relationships,and for them to be able to do this, they often needcoaching and leadership through example.

Gunter Dueck... is an IBM Distinguished Engineer. Before joining IBM in1987, he was professor of mathematics at the University of Bielefeld, Germany. His fields of research include informationtheory, combinatorics, optimization and management theory.He worked for several years at the IBM Scientific Center asa researcher in optimization and has also managed an up-coming business in this field. He founded the Business Intelli-gence Services (Data Warehouses, Data Mining) for IBM Central Europe, and has spent many years working for strategic direction and cultural change. In 2009 and 2010, he

led the “Dynamic Infrastructure”and “Cloud Computing” business of IBM Germany where he is now CTO.



we_special_ /

we_magazine:Are there different types of leadership models for “change and run”?

Gunter Dueck: Of course there are! Running a busi-ness has to do with experience, tradition and a mature

corporate culture. So naturally people are frightenedof changing things. “Never change a winning team”or “If the IT is working well, leave it well alone!” In hisbook “Anxiety. Using Depth Psychology to find aBalance in Your Life” (Die Grundformen der Angst),Fritz Riemann says that fear of change is closely rela-ted to the obsessive personality whereas change is theexact opposite – the hysterical principle frightenedthat everything will always remain the way it is. Theone principle improves on the status quo, the otheroften makes a radical break with it in sheer exaspera-

tion. This is why there’s always a spiritual struggle bet-ween the up and running, the profit making and thetried and tested on the one hand, and the forces forchange and renewal on the other. And the two sidesare constantly badmouthing one another – it’s “air-heads who ruin everything traditional” versus “nepo-tistic stick-in-the-muds who resist all that’s new”.

Nowadays companies in general are much more hea-vily engaged in switching over to change than theyused to be. At meetings you’ll find the sworn advoca-

tes of change up at the front propagating drastictransformation in which “everybody must play theirpart” while you usually feel a wave of chilly scepticismcoming from the audience – not a surge of bright en-thusiasm in answer to the call. True leaders can gobeyond this divide and move things forward whilealso taking their people with them.

we_magazine:And what kind of changes has 2.0 brought about on the meta-level you mentioned?

Gunter Dueck: Search me! . fits neither into the oldworld of hierarchies nor the new world which con-stantly demands figures-based performance enhance-ment. Individually tailored performance targets doindeed put individuals in cages! . could establishcompletely new forms of the type that work well insmall companies. But to do this, . must show thatit’s scalable. And that’s by no means obvious. All small

communities work well – up to say people, any fi-gure beyond that needs to be organized. This changeof character when a structure grows beyond the mark – which is the limit at which most people knoweveryone involved – is quite independent from the In-ternet, isn’t it? That’s what I think, at least.

we_magazine:How do you change employees into followers?

Gunter Dueck: There are quite a number of ways todo this. You can simply coerce them. Or you can per-suade them, persuade them, persuade them. Mainlyit’s done by coercion. Basically, change managers ex-pect too much of their employees and because they’rewell aware that their expectations are too high, theydon’t believe that their employees will follow them

willingly. So coercion is needed. And if coercion hasto be applied, let it come in the form of a short, sharpshock – that’s what many of the gurus recommend.And this shock numbs employees into a state of apa-thy as though they’ve been struck by a catastrophefrom which they emerge two days later to resumetheir work. By far the most difficult of all these varia-tions is to work together with the employees in pur-suit of a vision.

we_magazine:

And who sets the vision? Or is it made collectively?Do the so-called Web 2.0 tools help in making it?

Gunter Dueck: Oh, a good vision is the first thing youneed! Most people imagine that everyone can have avision. Yes, they can but not necessarily a good one.Most people also imagine that anyone can make avision. Yes they can if they have the power to do sobut their vision must not necessarily be good, mustit? Most of the Amazons and Googles start with a vi-sion that attracts increasing numbers of disciples. But

the vision was there beforehand!

I don’t believe that a vision can be created by a load ofpeople. Do visions emerge from brainstorming sessi-ons? No, they don’t! So what should be better with

. ? But what you can do with . is to decide onwhich credo or code of ethics you’re going to follow;you can set the values on which a community rests.



we_special_ /

we_magazine:An IBM report from last fall, a survey of 3,000 top managersworldwide, said that creativity is one of the key issues topmanagement will have to take on board in the coming years.What does creativity mean to you, and how do I lead myemployees to be creative?

Gunter Dueck: Isn’t that what they’re all saying now?But what the survey says – and you quote it – is thatit’s the top management that should be creative.Which doesn’t necessarily mean that each and everyemployee has to be so. Nor can they all be.

In any case who is really creative? Creativity is some-thing like innate intelligence which tends to be prettyrare. It’s what we now miss in top management. Idon’t even think that we need that much creativity.

Major companies have big problems coping with thevarious realities of the internet. Telecoms are seeingtheir fixed networks crumble away, banks and insu-rance companies are disappearing into the Net alongwith books and publishing houses, energy suppliersmust learn IT to operate balance area agreementswhile IT itself is vanishing in the cloud and all types ofadministration are being automated … The point hereis to get on top of all these upheavals. And to do soyou don’t need that much creativity but you do needa whole lot of courage to take a long cool look into

the future. Most companies deep down inside justdon’t want to do this. That’s the problem. All the crea-tive ideas are already there, only actually implemen-ting them is a hard and painful process because thelegacy from the past weighs so heavily. In small com-panies, on the other hand, creativity is a real joy be-cause there aren’t any bridges to burn. That’s why wesee companies slowing down and dropping by thewayside while others are born and grow up big andstrong! To give you a case in point – you can easilytake joy in building e-cars, only it won’t be so easy if

you’ve given your heart and soul over the past deca-des to building gasoline-driven vehicles.

we_magazine:Is there really something like creative management?Or does creativity belong in the creative department and not with the guys in suits?

Gunter Dueck: To my mind “creative management”

implies that you come up with bright ideas everysecond day. But it doesn’t work like that. A companycan live off one bright idea for years and it makes awhole mountain of work. Take BMW, for instance,which latched onto the idea of building cars fromultra-lightweight carbon instead of heavy sheet metalwhich means that the batteries of the e-cars have amuch longer life. OK, that’s the idea. Only now youneed hundreds of millions in investment! You needthe courage of your convictions. And persistence!Before you taste that final success! Edison said that

genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine per-cent perspiration. All this chatter about creativityhasn’t got the slightest whiff of perspiration. That’swhy I call i t chatter.

we_magazine:In our last interview you said that as cloud manager you held no direct responsibility for human resources at IBM … whichbasically squares with the follower principle we’ve just talked about. What kind of personal experiences have you madewith this?

Gunter Dueck: As cloud manager, I was just the virtualboss of my people who had simply been asked towork together with me but who all still had their nor-mal line managers (who always wants to grab a sliceof the work for themselves). I much prefer it whenpeople are motivated enough to come and work withme because that means I don’t have to keep recordsbecause I am not there “top-down” boss. I’ve neverhad any problems with people refusing to work withme just because I wasn’t their real boss. You can read

in my Bluepedia column how I managed an entire pro-ject only working with volunteers. All on overtime –but that went well because I took care to ensure thatthe work really was enjoyable!



Interview with Ken Robinson

Ken Robinson stands for a radical rethink of our school systems. A rethink that cultivatescreativity and acknowledges multiple types of intelligence. But such a rethink doesn’t only hold true in education: companies too need to liberate their staffs from active disen-gagement from their work and create a company culture where employees can reallyunfold their full potential and be in their element. The company will then be free tocelebrate the full range of diversity in its staff and reap the benefits coming from a vibrant internal culture. An internal culture which evolves symbiotically with the changing external cultural environment in which they are aiming to grow.

we_special_ /

Leading A Culture OfInnovation

# creativity, imagination, innovation, the element, out of our minds, education,creative leadership, culture of innovation, creative cultures

> related articles:Gunter Dueck (p. ), Ismael Khatib (p. ), Itay Talgam (p. ), Beate Hausmann (p. )



we_special_ /

Sir Ken Robinson... is an author, speaker, and international advisor oneducation in the arts to govern-ments, non-profits, education,

and arts bodies. He was director of The Arts in Schools Project,Professor of Arts Education at the University of Warwick.He was knighted for his servicesto education in 2003.



we_special_ /

we_magazine:A culture of innovation – what does this mean to you?

Ken Robinson: Organizations usually talk more aboutinnovation than creativity. Often what they think of asinnovation actually aims too low. In practice, a culture

of innovation depends on cultivating three processes,each of which is related to the others: imagination orthe ability to bring to mind events and ideas not pre-sent to our senses; creativity which I define as the pro-cess of having original ideas that have value; andinnovation – the process of putting ideas into practice.

Innovation may focus on any aspect of on organizati-on’s work but aiming straight for innovation withoutdeveloping the imaginative and creative powers onwhich it depends would be like an athlete hoping to

win a gold medal at the Olympic Games but with nointention of exercising beforehand. Just as success inathletics depends on building physical fitness, a cul-ture of innovation depends on the processes of ima-gination and creativity that give rise to it.

So the starting point for companies should be toadopt a new metaphor for human organizations andto replace the outdated idea of employees being me-chanized cogs in the wheel of a business machine.

we_magazine:Why is a culture of innovation so important – why now?

Ken Robinson: Many organizations are still based ona theory from the beginning of the th centurywhose premise is that human organizations shouldwork like machines and that the main role of leader-ship is to improve profitability by increasing producti-vity. We definitely should go beyond this.

Yet this basic conception of the organization is fun-

damentally inimical to fostering the culture of inno-vation upon which the future of most organizationsnow depends. Human organizations are not mecha-nisms and people are not components in them.People have values and feelings, perceptions, opini-ons, motivations and biographies, cogs and sprocketsdo not. An organization is not the physical facilitieswithin which it operates: it is the lively network ofpeople within it.

Companies are like organisms : they have their crea-tive flush of youth after which they tend to settledown into sedate middle age and may well suffer froma hardening of the categories and lose all their origi-nal vitality and suppleness. A culture of innovation isan antidote to decrepitude. The trinity of principles –

imagination, creativity and innovation – is a force forrevitalization that can give the company new life atany point of its development.

So consciously engaging the whole staff in the crea-tive life of an organization can have huge benefitswhile unconsciously disengagement can have expen-sive consequences. A Gallup study estimated that‘actively disengaged employees’ cost the US economyalone between $ and $ billion a year and laterstudies show that engaged employees are more pro-

ductive, profitable and create stronger customer rela-tionships.

we_magazine:

What role does a creative leader play in introducing aculture of innovation?

Ken Robinson: Being a creative leader means ensu-ring that everyone in the organization is playing totheir creative strength and feels that their contribu-tion is valued as part of the overall performance. Lea-

ding a culture of innovation means engaging with twocultural challenges: external and internal.

In the natural world, successful organisms live sym-biotically with their environment. If they are to sur-vive, let alone flourish, organizations need to have avibrant internal culture, which evolves symbioticallywith the changing cultural environment in which theyare aiming to grow. The task of a creative leader is tofacilitate a resilient relationship between the externaland internal cultures.



we_special_ /

we_magazine:What does the role of a creative leader involve?What kind of skills should such a leader have?

Ken Robinson: The essential skill for leading a cultureof innovation is understanding the difference between

a human organization as a mechanism and as an or-ganism and being able to shift from one to another.This is a fundamental shift on various levels and it re-quires time and full commitment from the board.

Being a creative leader involves strategic roles in threeareas of focus: personal, group and cultural . Withineach of these there are three core principles of prac-tice which are organic processes that should feed intoeach other in a continuous cycle of mutual enrich-ment.

As I’ve emphasized in my latest book “Out of OurMinds”, the education system blunts the creativity offar too many children. An initially strong imaginativefaculty is blunted and coarsened by the time theyleave school. And the same fate applies to the careersof many company employees.

So the first role of a creative leader is to facilitate thecreative abilities of each and every member of the or-ganization. A creative leader does this by recognizing

that everyone has creative potential. No matter inwhich field he/she is working in. Many organizationsassociate creativity with specific functions yet for in-novation to flourish it has to be seen as an integralpart of the organization rather than as a separatefunction. Releasing untapped talents and abilities isabout being in your element. Yet being in your ele-ment is not only about aptitude, it’s about passion,it’s about loving what you do. Being in your elementis about tapping into your natural energy and yourmost authentic self. When that happens, as Confucius

once said, you never work again.

Secondly, the role of a creative leader is to nourishimagination as an essential part of growing a cultureof innovation based upon that innovation is the childof imagination. As Peter Richards puts it, a creative or-ganization “is first and foremost a place that givespeople freedom to take risks ... a place that allowspeople to discover and develop their own natural in-telligence … and a place where there are no ‘stupid’

questions and no ‘right’ answers.” Being creative isnot only a matter of inspiration. It requires skill, craftin the control of materials and a reciprocating processof critical evaluation.

And thirdly, the creative leader should disseminate the

idea that we can all learn to be more creative. Profes-sional development is at the heart of creative culturesbut often organizations are reluctant to invest in it.Many take a short-term view of training needs. Thiscan ultimately be counterproductive because it eatsaway at organizational loyalties and the sense of com-mon purpose on which creative cultures depend. Thebetter approach is to invest in the talents and loyal-ties of the staff.

we_magazine:

That’s the personal level, what about the group level?

Ken Robinson: More often than not creativity in or-ganizations is driven by teams, where there is a flowof ideas between people who have different areas ofexpertise. So the second role of a great leader is toform and facilitate dynamic creative teams. Creativityunderstood in the way that it thrives on diversity; lovescollaboration and does take time .

Diversity is a tremendously powerful resource for

teams and for the workforce as a whole. Not all com-panies have woken up to this. There is still a tendencyfor leaders and managers at all levels to hire peoplewho look and seem like themselves, which might beunderstandable from a cultural point of view butwhich creates long-term problems for the flexibilityand creativity of the organization as a whole. Yet amore diverse workforce enables a company to bemore in tune with the needs of the changing culturalenvironment in which it is operating.

Collaboration is not the same as cooperation. Coope-ration only requires that the efforts of different peoplebe synchronized in some way. Collaboration is morethan that. It involves people working together in ashared process in which their interaction affects thenature of the work and its outcomes.

Finally, on the group level, creative insights can taketime to develop and creative leaders understand thattime is an essential resource for innovation – think of



we_special_ /

Google where engineers can use percent of theirtime for discretionary projects.

we_magazine:And on the cultural level?

Ken Robinson: The quality of the creative work of in-dividuals and groups is deeply enmeshed in the cul-ture of the organization as a whole. So creative leadersshould promote that creative cultures are supple, thatthey are inquiring and that creative cultures need crea-tive spaces.

The processes of creativity can be stifled by a sensethat ideas are unlikely to travel up the organization orwill not be taken seriously if they come from thewrong places. Innovation can be stifled by pressure

from above to deliver results over the wrong times-cale. Loosening hierarchies means that those who runthe organizations should be accessible to those whowork within them. The need for continuous innova-tion involves reviewing some of the most establishedpractices in leadership. Willingness to listen in leadersis paramount. It leads to more harmonious senior ma-nagement discussions, enhanced trust and speedy de-cision-making as colleagues cease second guessingeach other, and is also leading to more delegation andto more empowerment of younger members of staff.

And finally the physical environment – the habitat –is a powerful embodiment of organizational culture.The traditional design of office buildings and spaces isrooted in the th century. These are hardly the rightenvironments for stimulating imagination, creativityand innovation.

we_magazine:

Can a culture of innovation be achieved without commitment on the part of the board?

Ken Robinson: Creating a culture of innovation willonly work if the initiative is led from the top of theorganization. The endorsement and involvement ofleaders means everything, if the environment is tochange.



Interview with John Hagel III

“As we begin to understand that the WE really is a global WE, we will need to rethinkour institutions and our practices,” says John Hagel. In this interview John sides with aworld of pull in which we define new institutions and practices – coming from the edgeand moving forward in small but rapid steps towards, and within the framework of, a long term vision.

we_special_ /

Leading From The Edge

# power of pull, innovation, coming from the edge, new role of leadership,world of warcraft, transformation, change

> related articles:Don Tapscott (p. ), Lee Bryant (p. ), Stephen Denning / Luis Suarez (p. )



we_special_ /

we_magazine:John, to start with our WE-question: How has your understanding of WE changed since the rise of the internet?Has it changed?

John Hagel: I think it has changed in the sense of the

opportunities available to expand on the notion of WE– to include anyone and anywhere. I think in the pastwhen we talked about WE it was the WE in our localcommunity, the WE in our corporation, the WE in ourcountry. But now there really is a global WE that isconnected in very powerful and increasingly rich waysthat make change happen much more effectively thanever before.

we_magazine:So you do relate WE closely to transformation and change?

John Hagel: Yes! I definitely do!. Our institutions wereall built around much narrower versions of WE. And Ithink that as we begin to understand that the WEreally is a global WE, we will need to rethink our in-stitutions and our practices.

we_magazine:In one of your articles you mentioned that you can onlybe a leader by creating leaders … what do you mean by this?When we look at companies, many of them structured instrict hierarchies … how can everybody be or become aleader?

John Hagel: I think one of the challenges we have isto really redefine leadership. We’ve talked about thenotion of moving from a world of push to a world ofpull – unfortunately most of our institutions are or-ganized around push concepts. And in that context ifyou’re a leader you’re measured by the number ofyour followers – the number of people who will followyour direction, your instructions and execute whatyour vision is. I think that this form of leadership isincreasingly challenged because today – in a more

rapidly changing world – if you just have followers,you don’t have a lot of innovation and experimenta-tion going on to figure out what is the best way toadapt to the unexpected changes we are experien-cing. So I do believe that the new role of leadership isto develop other leaders, to continually enhance theleadership capability of anyone who is drawn to them.So that all of them together – collectively – can expe-riment, innovate and find more effective ways of ad-dressing the changes that are going on around us.

we_magazine:But is this what we really see inside companies?Or is it more wishful thinking?

John Hagel (laughing) : It’s certainly not widespreadat this point in time! I think you’ll find this kind ofleadership emerging in certain parts of companies.Mainly on the edges I would say. These tend to be theareas where there aren’t very effective policies, no de-tailed manuals written on how things need to getdone. There is “free space” which can be filled by in-

dividuals who simply take action. I think there’s aninstinctive sense on the part of leaders on these edgesthat they need people who are willing to take theirown initiative, willing to lead in their own domain andcultivate this new kind of leadership capacity. Becausethat’s the only way to be really successful on theseedges.



we_special_ /

we_magazine:You suggest that companies should move on in small steps rather than have some big master plan … How doesthis affect leadership?

John Hagel: I think that the challenge of leadership

and its great opportunity is on the one hand to makesense and on the other to make progress. One of thethings people look for in times of great uncertaintyand change is somebody who can help them makesense of it all. Somebody who can see the pattern andhelp to guide and focus on where the real opportuni-ties are. That’s one level of leadership. The other levelis to make progress. In terms of making progress in avery rapidly changing environment – typically if youdevelop a detailed blueprint it’s massive – that blue-print will be rapidly shown to be a total mismatch

given the unexpected changes that have happened.

A far more effective process for this kind of environ-ment is to start with small changes, small moves thatgo in the most interesting or high potential parts ofthe environment, parts where you can demonstratethe impact of change and where you can learn veryquickly. So one of the roles of a leader – I believe – iscontinuingly encouraging people to reflect on the ex-periences they have had. One of the things we tendnot to do – particularly under more and more time

pressure – is we never step back and say: How did wedo? What did we learn from that experience? Whatworked? What didn’t work? And I think leadership insmall moves smartly made is much quicker in encou-raging this kind of reflection and learning. We learnfaster when we make these small moves …

we_magazine:But then we need the processes and tools which enableand support this kind of reflection, don’t we?

John Hagel: I think we certainly need tools. But I’d saythat more than processes we need practices – if I can

make that distinction. A process is very tightly definedand tightly integrated. I think practices are somethingyou would do instinctively at different points in time.One of the things we’ve learned from the World ofWarcraft – this amazing online gaming environment –is the degree to which teams in games sit back and re-flect on the various actions they’ve taken. This is a verypowerful way to learn – and this is something a leaderought to be encouraging everyone to do.

we_magazine:

Do you think that playing World of Warcraft is a good exercise for becoming a great leader?

John Hagel (laughing) : Well, I have actually gone onrecord as encouraging younger students to considerwhether they should go to business school or becomeguild leaders in World of Warcraft. Actually there arean increasing number of executives around who roseto where they are now because they were guild lea-ders and developed a set of leadership skills in a veryuncertain, very challenging environment where you

don’t have command and control kinds of mecha-nisms – where you have to influence, you have to mo-tivate people to do things. And that is indeed a verypowerful set of skills – increasingly so in the businessworld.

we_magazine:Besides your arguments for these tiny little steps, you want to see a clear vision from a leader. Where will the companybe in 20 years? Isn’t that a contradiction?

John Hagel: It’s a potential contradiction. But it canbe resolved. I think the danger in small steps is you canfall into a very incremental pattern and never reallychange what you are doing in any fundamental way.You just marginally enhance your current set of acti-vities. If you have a long term vision, however, thenyou can make short-term choices about these smallsteps and if needed adjust them to achieve your long-term vision. So it’s working from the outside in as op-posed to just saying what do I have today, where can



we_special_ /

I move in a short period of time. And once again itsets in motion that learning process. Because as youtake these small steps – depending on their outcomes– it will help you to refine your view of the long termfuture. Yet on the other hand the long term futurehelps you to evaluate which of the small steps are

going to be most helpful …

we_magazine:

So this long-term vision is a kind of frameset …

John Hagel: Exactly. It’s part of that ‘making sense’aspect of leadership. If you can say, yes, there’s a lotof uncertainty in the world but generally we areheaded towards the long-term vision, then this direc-tion has implications for what we need to be doing inthe short term in order to be successful. This gives the

organization, the people who are engaged with you,a much clearer sense of why they are taking thesesmall steps, and where they could lead. And again itdrives that learning process.

we_magazine:Doesn’t this prove your saying “flow instead of stock”?

John Hagel: Yes. It just highlights another aspect ofleadership that often gets overlooked. Particularly inour current institutions, we tend to think of leader-

ship within the institution: how do you motivate wit-hin the institution, within the company? In this newworld where flows are becoming more and more cen-tral, where flows cut across institutions, I increasinglythink the role of a leader is to identify potential lea-ders outside the institution who could help in makingsense and making progress. A leader creates an envi-ronment where they can connect in a much more ef-fective way than people can just in their owninstitutions. We need to go across institutions andcreate a much larger movement …

we_magazine:How does the world of pull affect leadership?

John Hagel: We believe it makes leadership evenmore central to success. But it also fundamentallyshifts the tasks of leadership. So one of the roles ofleadership that we’ve talked about is helping to createscalable platforms of pull. We need platforms that canscale to millions of participants not just a few. You are

not going to be as effective in pulling in the resour-ces and the people you need to be successful. At theextreme, the third level of pull that we talk about ispulling out our full potential as human beings and thefull potential of our institutions. And here the role ofleadership is to give us a sense of our potential abi-

lity to imagine what could be accomplished and tomotivate us to head in that direction. So I think in thiscontext leaders are very inspirational in terms of hel-ping us to understand what our full potential really is.

we_magazine:

But pull is not only about platforms and potentials, it’salso about a different set of leadership skills, isn’t it?

John Hagel: Totally. You have to have a skill in terms ofdealing with ambiguity; you have to have a skill in

terms of your willingness to take more initiative onyour own which is why this notion of leaders needsto foster other leaders. More than just having peoplewho follow orders, you have to have a sense of how toconnect much more effectively. One of the things thatis more and more central to a world of pull is that youbuild trust based relationships with more people. Somore flow is coming …. That’s another set of skills thatis quite different from what we have right now.

we_magazine:

Change, transformation often starts at the edges of companies– not in their center. But can you lead from the edge?

John Hagel: I think you can. Not only can but need to.Again my sense in having worked with very large in-stitutions over long periods of time is that it’s extra-ordinarily hard to get change to happen within thecore of a large institution. So the only way to reallymobilize and get that critical mass of support for thechange agenda is to start with a promising edge. Es-sentially, when we talk about the edges of companies

we are talking about promising new growth plat-forms. They are not significant parts of the businesstoday; they don’t generate much revenue or profita-bility; there are not that many people yet. But they dohave the potential to scale very rapidly and becomereally central to the business over time. And one ofthe exciting things with current technology like cloudcomputing and social software is that you can scalethese edges much more rapidly than you could in thepast. It’s being thoughtful about which edges have



we_special_ /

this potential to scale. Using these edges to pull in thepeople who have real passion and risk taking abilityhelps drive change on the edge, and demonstratesthrough example the impact that can be achieved.This way you start pulling more and more people andresources from the core of the company out to the

edges. Because they now see it is possible and they’reconfronted with the sheer rapidity of its growth. So itmotivates more and more people to participate and,ultimately, if you do it right these edges become thecore of the enterprise.

we_magazine:Isn’t this idea similar to leadership by innovation?

John Hagel: I think that what we should look at is theinteresting reframing of innovation in the context of

leadership. Today in almost every company when youtalk about innovation you talk about innovation of anew product, a major new technology breakthrough,maybe a process innovation, maybe a business inno-vation. But what we are talking about here is institu-tional innovation – innovating a new set of relation-ships across institutions that will drive more rapidvalue creation and enhance flows. That is leadershipthrough innovation. The leaders of tomorrow are goingto be those who innovate at the institutional level –not just at the product or technological level.

we_magazine:

Does this leadership model only apply to companies or isit valid for governments as well?

John Hagel: The leadership question does extend be-yond companies. It involves all institutions whetherthey’re educational institutions, non-governmentalinstitutions and certainly governments. The challengefor all of us is the institutions we have built under themodel of push. On a fundamental level we need to

rethink how these institutions will operate in a worldof pull. What kind of leaders we need not only to na-vigate the transition but also to successfully lead thesenew kinds of institutions. So it is an issue for govern-ments. I think the turmoil we are seeing around theworld is the result of push government institutions in-creasingly struggling to adapt and deal with thepower of pull.

we_magazine:If we look now at Tunisia or Egypt. The opposition,the people, they are kind of “unstructured” right now.There is a real lack of leadership, a vacuum …

John Hagel: … yeah, there is! I believe though that

before new leadership can emerge there needs to be avacuum to attract it. I am actually much more of anoptimist that it will emerge. I think the key driver ofthese revolutions are those people without much ex-plicit ideology or thought – it was an instinctive senseon the part of the younger generation that the deve-lopment of their talent was being sacrificed and thatthey needed to oppose the institutions that preven-ted them from developing it in the way they needed todevelop it. I think the motivation driving this is verypositive. I think that by and large – with some excep-

tions – it’s been accomplished in a non-violent waysimply by making a statement. And making a state-ment is once again a very positive indication that a dif-ferent approach is at work here which will ultimatelylead to the surfacing of leadership. And this leader-ship will give a more explicit voice to the agenda dri-ving this action.

we_magazine:Many people are asking for somebody within the companywho is head of this new kind of leadership. Some people

call him/her the social business manager … But isn’t such ademand a contradiction in terms?

John Hagel: This is indeed a very difficult question. Atone level the whole notion of social business is whereleadership is much more distributed and diffused andeverybody is taking the initiative and leadership. Butthere is a transition period – the question is how doyou get there. And how do you deal with the enor-mous inertia and resistance at the core of these insti-tutions. Where there are – to understate the difficulty

– huge entrenched interests deeply hostile to this newworld of pull. So I think there is a need for some formof leadership to emerge. Typically from my experienceit emerges more on the edges of the enterprise. It’ssome business executive who has been given the re-sponsibility of driving a major new growth initiative.The business executive instinctively realizes that theold approaches are not going to be very helpful andthat makes him or her more willing to take risks. Andusually they are deeply passionate about what they



we_special_ /

are doing, so they tend to attract other people withinthe organization who have passion as well … who areexcited by this area where rules and processes are notwell defined. And yes, there is a lot of risk but there’sa lot of upside and reward if you succeed. In my ex-perience it’s rarely anyone coming from the existing

senior management of the large company itself …

we_magazine:

Can all this happen without top-down commitment?

John Hagel: It certainly would help to have commit-ment from the board. I think you rarely get commit-ment from the entire senior management team.Typically you’ll find one or two senior managers whoare willing to be kind of sponsors, willing to say weare going to provide some protection for the change

agent on the edge … But it’s rare to see an entire lead-ership team saying: We are going forward …

we_magazine:

… coming from the edge seems to be THE way!

John Hagel: Exactly! Exactly!



we_special_ /



Interview with JP Rangaswami

Ever since discovering information technology in the late seventies JP Rangaswami hasfelt that there is a disconnect between its potential and the actual value created in the handsof the end user – one of those strange cases of high investment in research only producing high dissatisfaction with the results.But change is in sight and we are now in a new world – he says – where we really areable to get the services we want – scalable and elastic, just when we want them, truly ondemand. Now it is indeed possible to realize and build the things that we have long beentalking about.

we_special_ /

Leadership In A FlatOrganization

# loss of control, collaboration, sandbox capacity, enterprise . , gaming

> related articles:Gunter Dueck (p. ), Lee Bryant (p. ), Stephen Denning / Luis Suarez (p. ),Frank Roebers (p. )



we_special_ /

JP RangaswamiJP is salesforce.com’s first chief scientist, and a multi-award winning and highly esteemed pioneer in the field of cloud computing. He believes it is only a matter of time beforeenterprise software consists of only four types of application:publishing, search, fulfilment and conversation.

Rangaswami has a wealth of experience down in the arena. Be-fore joining salesforce.com he spent four years at BT in London,most recently as chief scientist of the BT Group. He firmlybelieves that now is the time to demonstrate the value of information technology in simple terms rather than by complexinferences and abstract arguments.



we_special_ /

we_magazine:What kind of impact does enterprise 2.0 have on leadership?

JP: The first impact is that we used to organise in hier-archies because it was very expensive to sit and com-municate with everybody. The costs of collaboration

were exceedingly high. But with the Web they’vecome down to almost zero! And with today’s tools itis possible to flatten the organisation and to havefeedback loops for a large number of people withoutaggregating them. Because whenever you aggregateyou start summarising data and that weakens thecommunications process.The second thing these tools do is they accentuateand enhance lateral communication. So now you canfind out what the information flows in the organisa-tion actually are. Because our departments, functions

and structures aren’t the actual organisation itself,they are just a way of trying to manage it. And thiswas needed at a time when we didn’t scale well, whenwe only had analogue ways of dealing with the datastream. So I think the big change for organisationalleadership is that with these tools and structures flat-tening a hierarchy becomes affordable.

we_magazine:Are you saying we don’t need any hierarchies at all?

JP: No, no, no. There will always be hierarchies. Therehas been a considerable amount of research aboutemergent behaviours and swarming phenomena.When you see birds in flight, you can question wheth-er these sorts of behaviour actually need leadership.But in the corporate world we still have requirementsto deal with – such as reporting cycles and the plan-ning horizons either of the owners or the sharehol-ders. So while we may see a willingness to take onemergent behaviours, the company still has to be roo-ted in the financial construct of quarterly reporting

and annual reports of figures, accounting charts andso on. This means you need to have at least enoughhierarchy to fulfil these requirements.

we_magazine:So you would NOT say that leadership belongs to the network?

JP: Leadership absolutely belongs to the network butthe financial aspects of leadership are not easy tomodel. So while hierarchy is necessary for these fin-

ancial aspects, actual leadership doesn’t need thehierarchy at all.

we_magazine:What kind of skills will future leaders need to have?

JP: Well, we actually have been dealing with this ques-tion for the last twenty years. Initially we used termslike soft-hands leadership, then we saw servant-lead-ership types of teams. I myself have been speakingfor some time now about leadership having to back

down. It’s a hard question in various ways. Why wouldyou want to hire a really smart person and then tellthem what to do?

we_magazine:That’s kind of stupid.

JP: Yeah, it is stupid! You might as well have gotten adumb person if what you want to do all the time is tellthem what to do! We are living in a world where themost valuable asset to any organisation is the com-

mon knowledge of its employees.So how are you going to leverage this? You start tolearn from things like open source communities or –one of the things I have now been following over thelast six months – designing for loss of control.

we_magazine:Designing for loss of control?

JP: Yes. You actually make it a design objective thatyou do not have control of the edge. Now what does

this look like? Today Telcos have to deliver services andphones without knowing what device is on the otherend. Previously, most of the time they knew thedevice on the other end, the device belonged to them,they knew its colour; everything was controlled end-to-end. Today we are in a different world where youcan buy your phone from anybody and the Telco stillhas to provide the services. IT is now facing a similarproblem. It used to be lock-down desktops, now more



we_special_ /

and more people are asking to bring their own (open)laptops to work. This means a loss of control for ITdepartments!

we_magazine:Why are IT departments behaving like this?

JP: It’s because of risk management. You know as theysay, nobody got fired for buying IBM or Microsoft. Butthe large corporations that said this are now facingchange at an unprecedented speed. Today they maystill say “you will not, thou shalt not”. But behind thescenes they are all busy working out how to do it. ITsaid the same thing about BlackBerrys, and mobilephones, even about laptops. Yet all these things stillhappened. It is going to happen, it’s just a questionof when. And of course we are always going to be

faced with critical issues like safety and security.There’s a tension between privacy, confidentiality andsecrecy on the one hand and collaboration, sharingand community on the other. There is also a genera-tion conflict as the older generation are still saying“You’re crazy, thou shalt not share, information ispower” while what the kids are saying is, “I’ll sharewhat I do, I’ll share what I feel, I’ll share everythingand something beautiful will happen.”

we_magazine:

If you look at the organisational chart of smaller companies,it still says ’director’, ’head of’, with a couple more levelsof hierarchy tagged on. What would a modern organisational chart look like?

JP: We tried to change this organisational structure anumber of times but we didn’t have the informationflows or the infrastructure to do it properly. What youneed is the dynamic reallocation of resources whichbecomes possible with a matrix.I am personally learning more from video games. In

today’s video games the first thing you see is a fea-ture like a sandbox or training ground. It’s a simula-tion where you are not playing the game, you’re justlearning. This kind of sandbox capability is going tocome out everywhere at work. After you finish it, youare able to go in and have a basic under-standing ofwhat powers you have, what tools you have and youalso have a dashboard with feedback from your envi-

ronment. And then you go out to find other peopleyou want to work with. That kind of structure will startreflecting itself in an organisation.

we_magazine:If you build these networks, in the way you just

described, doesn’t it also mean that people become moreresponsible for what they are doing?

JP: Absolutely.

we_magazine:

Would you say that this new kind of leadership alsorequires new ways of remuneration?

JP: Yes. I think you will find that historically one of thereasons why it has almost never been possible to in-

troduce team bonuses is because the incentive struc-tures were not about sharing, but about hoardingpower and information. What I think we will end upwith is payment in two forms. One kind of paymentthat has to do with your skills and what you contri-bute to the company – this is the horizontal resourceelement which you price according to the market. Andabove and beyond that is the reward for success whichis team-based.

we_magazine:

Do you see any good examples already out there?

JP: Go back to video games. Even when you’re playingrudimentary games, it becomes quite clear that if youcomplete a quest certain things will accrue to you andyour team. There’s a pot of gold, extra weapons, per-haps an extra life and so on. This has always been thecase in gaming. Now when you go through massivelymultiplayer games, you see groups of people acqui-ring prizes for completing quests or missions, andthere is a way of sharing which tends to be equitable.

It gets worked out with the game mechanics. If welook at this as a company, we are sure to find ways offinding solutions for rewarding team-based success.



we_special_ /

we_magazine:When you open up these silos within enterprises you allowleaders by reputation to emerge. Isn’t there a conflict betweenthem and the leaders pinned down in the organisational chart?

JP: I think we are going through a transition. As thehierarchy moves towards the network, there are goingto be some tensions. But role-based leadership andoutcome-based teams are going to operate in a par-allel world to the classic career development hierarchy.If the reward mechanism is right then the people whoare on-the-job leaders will not want to fight to be-come functional heads. The big challenge is that thehistorical model said we believe in a flat organisationand collaboration, but under the surface what reallymattered was your head count and the size of your

budget. We would say one thing, but we couldn’t ac-tually cope.Take me as an example. Today, I am in a job where I amreally enjoying myself, but in terms of the number ofpeople I have reporting to me, it’s the same as on myfirst day at work: zero. These are the final stages ofleadership that I am learning about, leading throughinfluence and guidance. You still are accountable forresults, but you do not have any of the end-to-endcontrol. This means that your reputation matters; theway you behave will determine whether people will

listen to you or not. And it’s not a one-way street. Ifyou do not understand authority, you cannot use it.So I must first understand whose authority I am underand then say what my soft-hands leadership is. Howdo I guide and help and assist people who do notwork for me?

we_magazine:Would you say that bigger companies find it much moredifficult to adapt than smaller companies?

JP: I don’t know. Everyone cites the case of IBM andhow the elephant learnt to dance. When you have

scale you put things into place in order to protect thatscale from instability which tends to get in the waywhen you are trying to adapt quickly. The small orga-nisation finds it easier because it can operate betterin an amorphous state. It does not need to have allthe answers. Large organizations need to have a littlemore certainty about what they are doing, but whenthey do have this certainty they can execute at scale.So I do not know whether the tortoise or hare will winbecause I do not think of it as a race. They are twodifferent kinds of animal with two different speeds …

It’s similar to seeing how China has adapted to the in-dustrialised world. Some people would have said it’snot possible; it looks like command and control. Butwhen you dig down deeper, you find that the culturedid indeed allow sideways collaboration. John SealyBrown and John Hagel have written some great studieson this. I think their last book is absolutely essentialfor understanding the organisation of the future.



Interview with Martin Spilker

For many years Martin Spilker worked closely with Reinhard Mohn, founder of BertelsmannStiftung, a formative background that is apparent in this interview.Within his own field – corporate culture – Spilker investigates the impact Web 2.0 toolshave on the day-to-day work of his colleagues and has started his first pilot project – a wiki for processing a program proposal for submission to the board.

we_special_ /

Leadership MustWalk The Talk!

# corporate culture, Reinhard Mohn, partnership, cooperation-based dialog,responsibility, web . , intrapreneurship

> related articles:Kruse / Sattelberger (p. ), Doppler / Nau (p. )



we_special_ /

Martin Spilker... born in 1959, is a member of the Bertelsmann Stiftung’smanagement committee and head of CorporateCulture/Leadership. Since 1996 he has served aspersonal advisor to Ms. Liz Mohn.He studied political economics, business management, eco-

nomic psychology and economic history at the Universityof Paderborn and the University of Klagenfurt.



we_special_ /

we_magazine:What does corporate culture mean to you, Mr. Spilker?

Martin Spilker: There are many different definitionsof what corporate culture means! We have a norma-tive understanding of corporate culture with its roots

in the work of Reinhard Mohn after the war. It’s basedon principles which were important to him as anentrepreneur, and it foresees that motivation and crea-tivity mainly arise when people are given the free reinand opportunity to act as entrepreneurs. On the otherhand, this also means that they bear the responsibi-lity for their actions. Responsibility of employees andmanagers was a central issue for him. Freedom andeconomic success are not possible without responsi-bility. This idea also covers delegation of tasks and as-signments. And obviously this means that employees

should share in the company’s business success. In thes, Reinhard Mohn was one of the first German en-

trepreneurs to develop a model of employee partici-pation in profits.

we_magazine:How would you define leadership?

Martin Spilker: First and foremost leading peoplemeans serving people, as Reinhard Mohn remarks inhis book “Success through Partnership”. The manager

has to define the agenda, but he also makes sure thatemployees have free space to bring in their own ideasand participate. This means that a cooperation-baseddialog is inititated between employees and managersto achieve a joint understanding on the commongoals. I believe that’s one of the most importantthings – that this identification with the goals of acompany but also with the tasks and duties of the in-dividual employee really does take place and that abasis of shared understanding about them is created.

we_magazine:Yes, but haven’t we now moved away from corporate culture?Is leadership for you synonymous with corporate culture?

Martin Spilker: I think that leadership is a key factor indetermining corporate culture – and vice versa. Yet it

seems to me that the new directions taken by leader-ship are even more important. Professor StephanJansen of Zeppelin University recently described it asthe transformation of “leadership from the top down”to “leadership from the outside to the inside”! Thiswill increasingly involve a shifting of skills towardswhat I call the six c’s – skills and abilities in communi-cation, cooperation, criticism, conflict-resolution, crea-tivity and tackling complexity.

we_magazine:

How is Web 2.0 changing your understanding of leadership?

Martin Spilker: I was very impressed by Jeff Jarvis’sbook “What Would Google Do?” From the very firstpages it was clear what shifts in power and controlmechanisms can arise for managers, employees, cus-tomers and suppliers when new technologies enterthe management process. I deliberately say “can arise”.Greater transparency and possibilities for participationare bound to change what we mean by leadership. Ithink that authoritarian or patriarchal leadership has

had its day. The advent of new technologies meansthat employees are now much more closely involvedin processes, that it's easier to delegate responsibilityand that you have many more opportunities to gene-rate participation. It's much easier to have your say. Insuch a setting the basis is a joint understanding of cer-tain parameters – costs, quality and deadlines – inwhich entrepreneurship can emerge. For me, theseare the parameters within which self-responsible teamsact.

we_magazine:What do Web 2.0 tools mean for company employees?

Martin Spilker: Company employees must be put in aposition where they can actually use these new possi-bilities for participation. This is why I also sometimesuse a new concept of diversity which doesn’t just es-cribe the relations between man, woman, young per-son, old person, national or foreigner, even when thereare still a lot of open questions here. The new concept



we_special_ /

to see how employees cope with the issues of newtechnologies. They really must be able to assess whatkind of information is important for them and howthey should deal with it.

we_magazine:

What we’ve been seeing over the past twenty years inmany companies has been mainly optimization processes,automation … today, however, innovation is very muchat the forefront.

Martin Spilker: At this point I’d like to quote my men-tor, Reinhard Mohn, who wanted to “get many mindsto think”. This basically means give people the space,give them the possibility to step aside from hideboundprocesses and develop something new, try it out andtest it. It’s also absolutely essential in this context

that people be given the leeway to make mistakesand learn from them. And this, I think, can be very in-structively applied to the age of Web . . Traditionalcompany management aligns itself to process optimi-zation. “Cost reduction”, for instance was always thebig number one issue. Yet costs – and particularlycommunication costs – might not play that big a roleanymore. I think that there’s still a need for processoptimization, also due to the introduction of newtechnologies. But it’s still essential to involve people inthese changes so that we can develop fresh ideas from

a wide variety of sources and keep the dialog rolling.Networking people – whether it be in face-to-facetalks or via Web . – is still the best way to generateideas for me. That’s why I’m firmly convinced thatthose companies who spark innovation through newtechnologies are the ones who’ll keep their competi-tive edge. Today there isn’t just one winner becausecopying products is now much easier and quicker.Take the mobile phone, for instance, and see howquickly copycat products came on the market. Earlieron it would often have taken decades before some-

body lost their monopoly position or pioneering role;now it’s often just a matter of a few months. Obvio-usly this is why I’m such an advocate of innovationcombined with speed!

we_magazine:My last question is if we look for a moment into the theoreti-cal side of management, where do you find your main ideas,your line of thought reflected?

Martin Spilker: On the one hand, most certainly in the

practical experience you always glean from corporatelife. I tend to stand for a new form of a “behavioraltheory of coperate culture”. This means you have tobe aware of what kind of incentives you’re setting.Standard theories of management with their challen-ges in terms of sustainable economic performance,sustainable HR policy-making, sustainable develop-ment of corporate culture but also of new technolo-gies are now all reaching their limits. I believe thatthere are now completely new laws at work and thatpeople like Don Tapscott, for instance, play an impor-

tant pioneering role in sensitizing people to the factthat much of what we discussed in the past simply can’tbe dealt with in the same way in the age of Web . .Although – and I should emphasize this – the keysto-nes of delegation, co-determination, partnership anddecentralization still provide a pretty solid founda-tion. If a corporate culture is aligned with managementand socialized on such a basis, I am convinced that ithas great chances for success in the age of Web . .



we_special_ /



By Lee Bryant

The world might have forgotten the name of Mohamed Bouazzi but the young generation in the Arabworld never will. While the majority of their parents’ generation were forced into submission and silenceby fear, young Arabs are vocal, articulate and daring. In particular they see through the hypocrisy of go-vernments who have long claimed that the only alternative to them is chaos and radical Islam. Tunisiaand Egypt proved this wrong.

In his article Lee focuses of whether and how social technologies are impacting on our governments and us as citizens. It’s a debate about the power of transparency, the increasing ease with which people areable to coordinate collective action, but it’s also about the changing nature of distributed leadership and coordination.

we_special_ /

A Wake-up CallFor Despots

# Morozov, Jay Rosen, Egypt, government, leadership, social media,transparency, Tunisia

> related articles:Don Tapscott (p. ), J.P. Rangaswami (p. ), Sabine Donner (p. ), Ismael Khatib (p. ),Frank Roebers (p. ), Doppler / Nau (p. )



we_special_ /

Lee Bryant... co-founded Headshift in2002 to focus on the emerging area of social software and social networking. He’s played

around with words and computers since the age of 10, and has a strong belief inthe empowering potential of the internet. He is also aboard member of a social enterprise, Involve, and atrustee of the Foundationfor Science Technologyand Culture.



we_special_ /

The Guardian’s innovative timeline of events in the Arabworld shows just what a snowball effect was set off bythe happenings in Tunisia at the end of . Theseevents, which are ongoing and by no means complete,have re-ignited the debate about whether and how so-cial technologies are impacting on political protest and

the future role and behaviour of governments. It is adebate about the power of transparency, the increasingease with which people are able to co-ordinate collec-tive action; but it is also about the role of hard and softpower in international affairs and the changing natureof distributed leadership and co-ordination.

In Tunisia, the suicide of Mohamed Bouazizi was thespark that lit the fire of protest against a corrupt regime,but the impact of the earlier Wikileaks revelations aboutthe behaviour and finances of President Ben Ali and his

family cannot be underestimated as it fuelled the under-lying anger that Bouazizi’s protest ignited.

Inspired by events in Tunisia, Egyptians began their hi-storic Tahrir Square occupation that would eventuallylead to the ousting of President Mubarak and signifi-cant change in the national government. Whilst it wasthe military that played the key role in tipping eventstowards a change of regime, the Facebook group set upby a local Google employee played an important rolein the initial mobilisation of the protest.

In both Tunisia and Egypt, and to an extent in Libya aswell, the main impact of social technology was proba-bly the way in which it allowed ordinary people to bothsend and receive information about the protests with-out being limited by mainstream and government media.The contrast between the pathetic attempts at old-fa-shioned propaganda and the raw reality of mobilephone videos, tweets and other snippets from peopleon the ground perhaps also reminded citizens of Tunisiaand Egypt just how wide was the gulf between their

Twentieth Century leaders and the culture and beha-viour of young people in these countries today. Therewere, of course, attempts to shut down the internet andother desperate measures, but services like Google’s

speak-to-tweet and others managed to create alterna-tive routes to the internet for those brave or motivatedenough to use them.

But how much of a role did social media really playin these events? There has been a long and sometimes

polarised debate about the importance or otherwise ofonline social tools in revolutions and political changeover the past few years. Clay Shirky, whose book Cogni-tive Surplus quotes examples of protests in South Koreaand other places to demonstrate the new reality of on-line people power, has been seen as an advocate of thepower of the internet to effect political change, althoughhis position is far more nuanced and well-informed thancritics suggest. On the other side of the debate, EvgenyMorozov represents the school of thought that says theinternet is simply another tool or technology that can

be used for good or ill, and in that sense it’s no differentfrom previous technologies that have been assimilatedby both protestors and regimes alike. Less well in-formed about international affairs, but perhaps betterknown, is Malcolm Gladwell, who has also contributedto this debate. During the Egyptian uprising, he wrote:

“But surely the least interesting fact about [the protests] is that some of the protesters may (or may not) have at one point or another employed some of the tools of the new media to commu-nicate with one another. Please. People protested and brought

down governments before Facebook was invented. They did it before the internet came along.” 6

This is precisely the kind of article Jay Rosen recentlyreferred to when he wrote his excellent and detailedroundup of this debate and its limitations on hisPressThink blog (the “Twitter Can’t Topple Dictators”article). Rosen points out that Gladwell and others aresetting up a straw man to knock down when they claimthat many commentators are too uncritical and excita-ble in their view of the role of social media in political

change. He also points out that many of these articlesare based on the idea that social media is not a primarycause of protest, but fails to acknowledge its impor-tance as one among many factors that contribute to it,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/ /mar/ /middle-east-protest-interactive-timelinehttp://wikileaks.ch/cable/ / / TUNIS .htmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ /clay-shirky/the-political-power-of-social-mediahttp://www.edge.org/ rd_culture/morozov_shirky /morozov_shirky _index.htmlhttp://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/ / /does-egypt-need-twitter.html



we_special_ /

and he quotes David Hume on the mystery of how go-vernments stay in power to highlight the point that cau-sality is rarely clear or obvious in these matters:

“Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider humanaffairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the

many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, withwhich men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder iseffected, we shall find, that, as force is always on the side of thegoverned, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion.It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded;and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most militarygovernments, as well as to the most free and most popular.”

This quote touches on where I think much of the poten-tial of social technology to democratise societies can be

found. Hard power is concentrated in military and po-lice forces. The soft power of opinion may be strongerin aggregate, but it is highly distributed. Perhaps themost exciting capability of social technology is the wayin which it can aggregate lots of small, low-cost indivi-dual actions at scale to produce network effects. If welook at the role of Facebook in helping co-ordinate pro-tests, it provides a low-risk, low-cost way of gently regi-stering disapproval and an intent to protest, thuslowering the barriers that might put off all but the bra-vest and most committed. But when you see tens of

thousands of people demonstrating the same level ofcommitment and intent, the network effect becomes asource of courage and support for those who decideto take their protest onto the streets. So it becomeseasier to test the waters with a low commitment action,and also easier to approximate aggregate levels of sup-port and commitment before taking action.

Othman Laraki, who works for Twitter, tried to expressthis in an equation that seeks to identify the point atwhich the perceived costs of repression are outweighed

by the perceived mass of protestors ready to make astand. In his blog post outlining the equation, Othmanargues that social media reduces the cost of dissent,whilst increasing the cost of suppression.

But even this use of social technology to organise pro-tests is a point of contention, with Morozov and othersarguing that is also exposes protestors to state scrutiny.At the SXSW Interactive Festival in Texas in March ,Morozov gave a talk about his book The Net Delusion,where he defended his argument, clarified a few miscon-

ceptions about his views and shared some very inter-esting and informative observations about the waytechnology is being appropriated by regimes as well asprotestors. For example, he said the Chinese govern-ment aims to mobilise its online supporters within twohours of an online protest bubbling up, in order to gua-rantee containment. The fact that they have rapid re-sponse teams ready to do this so quickly obviouslytestifies to how much importance they place on the in-ternet, but it also shows how they are able to leveragetheir power advantage to suppress dissent, even online.

Morozov also responded to Clay Shirky’s point aboutthe so-called ‘dictator’s dilemma’ – the fact that shut-ting down the internet in response to protests can alsocost the state billions in lost revenues – by saying that incases such as Libya, where the stakes are very high, lo-sing $ - bn by shutting down the net is not a big deal,so we shouldn’t count on this logic.

More worryingly, Morozov quoted a number of exam-ples where regimes are using social technology to crackdown after protests, for example by going through Flickr

groups and crowdsourcing the identification of indivi-duals in photographs to gather intelligence and to punishthem for taking part. He said that the Iranian govern-ment is believed to be working on the use of facial re-cognition software to speed up this process, whichwould be a frightening way to turn the transparency ofsocial tools against protestors.

Morozov is a well-informed thinker on internationalrelations, and despite the gaps in his knowledge aboutopen source software, security, crytopgraphy and other

areas highlighted by Cory Doctorow in a Guardian articlecritiquing Morozov’s book , he is somebody to be takenseriously. But he is so focused on institutions in the inter-national system that he perhaps misses the countervai-

http://pressthin k.org/ / /the-twitter-cant-topple-dictators-article/http://zarnotes.blogspot.com/ / /economics-of-dissent-how-twitter-and.htmlhttp:// www.reuters.com/article/ / / /us-usa-internet-clinton-idUSTRE E Phttp://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/ /jan/ /net-activism-delusion?cat=technology&type=article



we_special_ /

ling force of people power that the internet is helpingto orchestrate. Morozov fears that if the US State De-partment buys into what he regards as hype about theliberating potential of the internet, then it might be usedas a political tool against regimes the US disagrees with.As someone who was part of the Praguebased Transiti-

ons Online, and presumably with exposure to the Voiceof America in Europe, Morozov understands the fine linebetween “foreign” funding of independent media andoutright propaganda intended to bring about politicalchange acceptable to funding countries. There is clearlya danger that the United States and other governmentscould do more harm than good by funding and sup-porting internet initiatives intended to foster unrest inother countries, and we have already seen at least oneexample of how this basic idea could be misapplied,with the outsourced mass ’sock-puppetry’ of the US go-

vernment’s Operation Earnest Voice. Morozov is quiteright to warn against this kind of stupidity.

So what have we learned from these events aboutleadership and forms of organisation?

First, I think the blunt instrument of Wikileaks’ ap-proach to transparency has provided a wake-up call fordiplomats and leaders of all kinds. Of course diplomacyand leadership sometimes require different messages

for different audiences, and being economical with thetruth is probably a fact of life. But from now on, anyleader or diplomat behaving in an outright immoral orduplicitous way will know that at some point theirwords (assuming they are written down) can come backto haunt them. Just as Othman Laraki suggests that socialmedia are lowering the cost of protest and increasingthe cost of repression, so has Julian Assange argued thathis mission is to dramatically increase the cost of badbehaviour, thus incentivising leaders to close the gapbetween what they say and what they do. This can only be

a good thing, in my view. I think of Wikileaks as doingfor transparency what the war crimes process has donefor the rules of war – it is an imperfect, blunt instrument,selectively applied, but it does mean that a commander

(or a diplomat), when asked to do something they knowto be wrong, might have in the back of their mind thepossibility that one day they could be called to account.

Second, we have seen the huge power of transparencyto disrupt the cosy web of business and political rela-

tionships that has grown up around corrupt regimesthroughout the world. As the BBC’s Robert Pestonargued in a blog post about corporate deals with unde-mocratic governments, there is almost always a publicinterest in transparency for large corporate contractswith governments, but this can sometimes come intoconflict with perceived national interests that are oftendisguised in opaque international deals.

The flip side of this, of course, is that leaders who arecapable of using social networks to amplify their own

influence and vision can succeed in new and interestingways. Whilst the internet is partly a vehicle for celebri-ties, it can also occasionally catapult real people withcompelling stories into the global limelight, and thiscan be a powerful force for those who lack conven-tional hard power in the international system. Leadershipin a networked world is a complex question, and manyemerging political or protest movements tend to eithereschew the idea altogether in favour of continually ne-gotiated co-ordination, or they vest authority in a figuredeemed to be widely respected and often at a stage in

their career when they are not seeking the trappingsof office, like Alexander Dubcek during the VelvetRevolution in Czechoslovakia or, more recently,Moha med ElBaradei in Egypt. I suspect we will see newhybrids of strong networked leaders combined with dis-tributed, democratic systems in the future, as all the evi-dence of history suggests there is still very much a rolefor leadership in promoting and sustaining change.

Third – and this is what gives me most hope – peopleoutside the Middle East are starting to learn through

their exposure to real people and raw information thatthis region is not populated exclusively by cartoonextremists or angry, disempowered but uninformedmasses. Instead, we have seen the sophistication and

http://boingboing.net/ / / /us-military-launches.htmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/ / /does_transparency_kill_ _of_d.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Dubcekhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei



By Sabine Donner

What makes good political leadership today? The answers to this question could fill entire libra-ries. But why not ask the people directly affected – whether they be on the “receiving end” ascitizens or on the “giving end” as politicians? We asked 5 people from 3 continents for their

personal insights and their own perspectives. What we got is a truly global snapshot. The peoplewe’ve chosen are as diverse as they can be in terms of their personal and professional back-grounds. Every country has its unique set of problems and its own social and cultural context.One thing they have in common, though, is that they are all “Transformation Thinkers” – part of a global network of inspired young leaders with a strategic vision, people committed todriving their countries towards development, democracy, peace and security in a changing global and regional environment. The Transformation Thinkers program is an interregional dialogue on good governance and democratic change created by the Bertelsmann Stiftung together with the German development agency GIZ in 2003. It has pursued a cross-regional and cross-sectoral approach since the very beginning, and is led by the conviction that political leadership is crucial for promoting change. It aims to provide a knowledge platform for the

exchange of experience between change-makers worldwide.

Despite all their differences and all the cultural and regional specifics, their answers show that they do indeed in many ways share a common perspective on the issue of political leadership.Their expectations are realistic, modest and huge at one and the same time. No one calls for astrong man (or strong woman!) to run the show alone. What is needed to tackle the complexproblems of our times is a participatory, multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral approach,integrating personalities who set their own interests aside for the greater good, and who areable to reconcile rather than disrupt in order to get people involved. Political leadership todayhas to be team work. The internet has – to various degrees in every country – changed therules of the game. Political leaders are expected to be innovative and open enough not only to

react to these changes and play by these rules, but to expand them to a point where communi-cation leads to action. Nothing more. Nothing less. Political leadership goes WE.

we_special_ /

Political LeadershipGoes WE

# BIT, Transformation Thinkers, Egypt, Guatemala, Bulgaria, Ecuador, Albania,political leadership, participation

> related articles:DonTapscott (p. ), Lee Bryant (p. ), Ismael Khatib (p. )



we_special_ /

Sabine Donner is responsible for the project “Shaping Change – Strategies of Development and Transformation” at the Bertelsmann Stiftung. Sabine holds an M.A. in Political Science,German Literature and Russian Language and Literature from the University of Freiburg.Prior to joining the Bertelsmann Stiftung in 2001, Sabine worked as a freelance journalist for several German newspapers and radio stations. She is one of the organizers of the Transformation Thinkers conference series.

Together with Hauke Hartmann and Matthias Jäger, she coordinates and publishes theTransformation Index (BTI), which offers data and detailed country reports on the qualityof political transformation, economic development and governance in 128 countries.

Martín Arévalo de Léon (Guatemala) is Program Officer for Haiti at Interpeace, wherehe is developing a strategy to establish a decentralized and participatory dialogue process for peace and development. Originally trained as biochemist and microbiologist, he had a success-ful career in management before leaving the private sector to engage in public policy design,analysis and implementation. In 2004, Martín was responsible for facilitating the participa-tion of civil society groups in the formulation of security sector policies at the Security AdvisoryOffice to the Guatemalan Congress, and was later appointed Deputy Secretary at the

Presidential Secretariat for Peace, the cabinet-level office responsible for the coordinationand implementation of the Peace Accords where he led the government’s efforts to restructurethe reparations program for victims of the internal armed conflict.

Ibrahim Hegazy (Egypt) is chairman of the Department of Management and head of theMarketing Faculty at the American University in Cairo. He also teaches at the Alba GraduateSchool of Business in Athens and at the International School of Management in Paris. Ibrahim is an elected member of the board of directors of the Egyptian Advertising Association, Egypt’s non-governmental association which brings together all professionalsworking in marketing communications and advertising in Egypt. as well as a member of theboard of directors of Egypt’s Tourism Authority. Ibrahim has received a number of interna-

tional awards in marketing, marketing communications and teaching.

Georgi Kamov (Bulgaria) is managing partner of Nextdoor, an innovation consultancythat aims to transfer innovative solutions from all over the world to Bulgaria, southeasternEurope and the Black Sea region. Georgi has a seven year track record in implementing new ideas in government institutions and non-profit organizations. He has worked in theMinistry of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria, the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)and the Bulgarian School of Politics.

María Paula Romo (Ecuador) has been an MP since 2009. She is a founding member and political activist of the “Ruptura de los 25” movement that was part of the government

coalition in Ecuador. In January 2011, María Paula and other members of the movement left the coalition in protest at President Correa’s plans to hold a referendum on legislativereforms that would entail changes to the country’s constitution. As a member of theConstituent Assembly of Ecuador, María Paula contributed to drafting the new constitutionadopted in 2008.

Blerta Selenica (Albania) has been Director of the Department of Public Administrationat the Ministry of the Interior of Albania since 2007. Prior to this, she was a training manager onlegal issues at the Training Institute of Public Administration in Tirana and had worked as ahuman rights advocate, lawyer and project coordinator for a wide range of NGO projects.



we_special_ /

Sabine Donner: >

What constitutes good political leader-ship for you? What leadership skillsare most needed to face the problemsof our times?

María Paula Romo: A leader is someone who knows how to listen, some-one who is committed to investigate and learn. I do not believe that youneed extraordinary skills or have to be some kind of messiah in order tobe a good leader. You just need communication skills and above all hardwork and discipline.

Georgi Kamov: Good political leadership can be described as nothingmore and nothing less than the ability to put the interests of societyabove your own. This has always been a problem but it’s the essentialleadership skill of our times. Other key skills include openness, and agood understanding of the role of technology.Here’s another way of looking at it: leaders should be able to see thefuture and build a bridge to get there.

Ibrahim Hegazy: Good political leadership is listening to the voice of thepeople as represented by all of its different social classes, and gettingthe people’s key representatives engaged as an advisory board in the po-

litical decision-making process so that political leadership can developthe appropriate national strategy that can serve the younger generationwho will inherit the legacy of national strategies made by the presentpolitical leadership.

Blerta Selenica: Good political leaders, in my opinion, should carefullyidentify the needs of the common people and represent them faithfully,keeping strong integrity and resisting the temptation of corruption.Good political leaders should be concerned with the future of their nationand not only with the next election outcome. When convinced by argu-ments, they should have the courage to make the right decisions, even

if these prove unpopular at times.Good political leaders should be able to guarantee transparency ofgovernance, should be able to communicate their vision effectively tothe people, and, above all, should be willing and able to work in a teamto achieve the best results.

Martín Arévalo de Léon: Good political leaders should have an under-standing of the key issues and should be able to take a down-to-earthapproach towards them (regardless of their political philosophy). Theyshould also be able to make social groups come together rather thancreating divisions on whatever subjects. Patience, good communication

skills, the ability to listen to different points of view and to create com-mon ground with consistency and credibility are crucial skills for any po-litical leader.



we_special_ /

Sabine Donner: >

Looking at the current situation inyour country and the key challengesyour country is facing, what role doespolitical leadership play? Is it more part of the problem or part of the solution?

María Paula Romo: Leaders are both part of the problem and part ofthe solution. Their behavior and attitude may – and must be! – part ofthe solution, despite the fact that they might well create some conflictson their way to achieving it. I believe that political issues have much incommon with pedagogy; this is why a political leader must become anexample to emulate through his or her democratic, honest and consi-

derate practices.

Georgi Kamov: It’s both – and I think this is the same anywhere you go.Political leadership is necessary in order to push reforms forward. It is alsonecessary for the opposition in order to counterbalance the rulinggovernment.On the other hand, it is also part of the problem – the problem of tran-sition, or, more precisely, the lack of it. The ruling elites of years agostill manage to hold on to power, turning political leadership into poli-tical “steering”-ship. This makes the rise of fresh, unbiased leaders a realproblem.

Ibrahim Hegazy: The first and main role of political leadership in Egyptafter the th of January Revolution is to rebuild the lost trust betweenthe people and the “Nezam” (Arabic for the political system as repre-sented by the government). The second role of political leadership is tocommunicate a swift, concrete and detailed roadmap for the imple-mentation of the promises the new political leadership is making inresponse to the Revolution’s demands. These promises are derived froma new process of listening to the voices and demands of different socialand economic sectors in Egypt in an attempt to regain the lost trust. Thethird role of political leadership is to combat the huge and unbelievably

cancerous levels of corruption that are now surfacing in Egypt. Thefourth role is to calm different economic sectors by responding to the dif-ferent demands now presented in every governorate in the form of de-monstrations and sectarian civil strikes. The fifth role is to bring backsocial justice by reducing the huge gap between rich and poor sectorsin Egyptian society.

As the new political leadership has been appointed based on the adviceand recommendations of the young people leading the th of JanuaryRevolution, it should be considered as part of the solution and not partof the problem.

Blerta Selenica: In my country, Albania, it seems that most political lea-ders share the same vision of integrating the country in the EU as a factorof stability and security in the region, through membership in NATO –which has already been achieved – and other international organiza-tions. Even so, key administrative reforms are sometimes blocked orslowed down through unproductive political debate in parliament andunneeded conflict situations that impede reasonable compromise.



we_special_ /

Sabine Donner: >

If you were elected president of your country, what are the three keystrategic actions that you would take that would most accelerate your country’s transformation?

Martín Arévalo de Léon: Political leadership in Guatemala is focused onpersonal and group interests rather than on national issues and chal-lenges. Most political parties are formed around strongmen and do notpromote internal democratic processes. Offices are always filled in linewith the leader’s interests or with the sums of money individuals donateto the party. Political vision is always fixed on day to day issues rather

than on strategic actions to bring about development or economic andsocial growth. In general, political parties are part of the problem sincethey do not fulfill the intermediary role between society and state. Theyare only active during electoral processes and do not really respond tosocial demands.

María Paula Romo: This is a complex question and our country’s pro-

blems cannot be solved with simple short answers. Even so, in terms ofEcuador’s problems we – speaking as a member of a political movementcalled Ruptura – believe that investment in education, free public healthand honest labor policies which can guarantee equality for men andwomen are some of the key strategic actions we would take to accelerateour country’s transformation. Furthermore, building a strong democra-tic order around our public entities through active social participationwould also help achieve that goal.

Georgi Kamov: The president of my country does not hold much power.Nevertheless, I would focus on these strategic actions:

. Keeping society active on major issues – constantly initiatingdebates at home and abroad.

. Forming flexible expert groups on a wide range of problems whichinclude prominent figures from at home and abroad.

. Stimulating education on human, citizen and political rights allover the country.

Ibrahim Hegazy: As president of Egypt, I would take the following stra-tegic actions:

. Change the Egyptian constitution and bring it in line with the stcentury generation with consideration given to the changes thathave taken place since the present constitution was initially tailo-red to protect political leadership – not the people.

. Combat widely prevailing corruption and bring corrupt officials tojustice; strengthen the rule of law and attempt to regain lost trust.

. Reduce the economic gap that has led to social injustice amongdifferent social sectors.

. Stimulate foreign and local direct investment since economicallyEgypt has to keep moving forward at all costs.



we_special_ /

Sabine Donner: >How does the internet/new techno-logy/social networks affect political leadership? How does it shape or change people’s expectations and attitudes towards political leadership?Are there innovative ways in which po-litical leaders could react to this change?

Blerta Selenica:

. Introduce final regulation of the land ownership issue.

. Establish a stable and fair election code.

. Implement further anti-corruption measures.

Martín Arévalo de Léon:

. Strengthen public institutions (mainly the judiciary).

. Improve the education system.

. Establish a social-economic forum to set the trends for thecountry’s development.

María Paula Romo: Even though internet usage in Ecuador is not yetpervasive, new technology and social networks are still an interestingand effective way of communication. Politicians have always had theirown ways to get their messages across, but social networks have becomea better way because they make us more reachable by enabling peopleto express their ideas, complaints and opinions in a fast, easy and inex-pensive manner.

Georgi Kamov: It profoundly changes the whole political game. Peoplenot only want to be informed – they are starting to demand the right tobe informed! How can the public sector stay silent if I am bombarded

with information from all other areas in my private and social life? Howcan I have my local supermarket let me choose the things I buy thereand not have my local authorities ask me whether I would like to keepthe park dog-free?The most innovative way for a leader to react is not to have a Facebookpage for Q&As – this is already a must. It’s to find the ways and meansto turn opinion-gathering mechanisms into action-oriented mecha-nisms – in other words, to follow up on what has been said by citizens.The internet is just another means of communication – the most im-portant question is whether it leads to more action or just “fake” action.Posting a comment on the problem of homeless people in an MP’s blog

or joining a cause on Facebook does not at all mean that you’re doingsomething significant about it.

Ibrahim Hegazy: The internet – and more specifically the use of socialmedia – played a vital role in igniting the spark that led to the th ofJanuary Revolution in Egypt. Furthermore, social media is now the maincommunication channel between different sectors of the population andthe government. It is now also the main square for discussion and votingon issues of national concern to Egypt.



we_special_ /

Sabine Donner: >

The way forward: what kind of political leadership would you like to see evolving

in your country within the next five toten years?

The Higher Council of Military Forces (the governing body of Egypt afterthe resignation of Mubarak) has established a page on Facebook to com-municate with the people. The Egyptian government has also establis-hed websites for complaints, inquiries, suggestions, virtual demonstra-tions, and sectarian demands. This is just the start, and the variety anddepth of ways in which social media are used as a new venue for liste-

ning to the people is expanding day by day. In fact, many political par-ties as well as newspapers are moving towards social media and theinternet to deliver their news and listen to what the people want.

And yet, a note of caution should be sounded here about the use of theinternet and social media. We have started to notice fake, untrue andmanipulated photoshop/adobe kind of images that send out wrong mes-sages, ferment chaos and fuel ethnic conflicts with a view to creatingstates of instability and social unrest that prevent the country from mo-ving forward to reap the benefits of the Revolution.

Blerta Selenica: New communication technologies enable political lead-ership to get up-to-the-minute feedback from interest groups and indi-viduals. By making use of electronic means of communication, peopleexpect that their voices will be better heard by political leaders. The blogsused by an increasing number of politicians to communicate directly withthe public are one good example of innovation.

Martín Arévalo de Léon: As people have only limited access to informa-tion technologies in Guatemala, the internet still has only a very limitedeffect on political discourse. In theory social media have the potentialto raise greater awareness of the issues at stake and to produce greater

public participation. In theory yes, but not in our reality where only a fewpolitical leaders are tapping into the potential of the internet, given thegeneral lack of access.

María Paula Romo: I would like to see leaders, both men and women,with strong democratic ideals who care about human rights, who arewell educated, who understand and try to solve the complex problems

that our country is facing. Leaders who can work together with differentpeople as a team, not individually, to achieve the goals the countryneeds. Countries in Latin America don’t need one leader, one sole face;they need lots of leaders who can put their differences aside to work to-gether to solve the problems.



we_special_ /

Georgi Kamov:Open.Problem-solving.Bottom-up.Fearless.Tech-savvy.

Moderate.Forward-looking.Being able to see and act on the big picture and the big challengesworldwide.Hungry for change and innovation, not hungry for power.…But evolution does not take from five to ten years, right?

Ibrahim Hegazy: Within the next five years, I would like to see a politi-cal leadership in Egypt that is based on pushing and working strongly forethnic unity, social justice, economic growth, food self-suffiency, the rule

of law, and the safeguarding of human rights, flagging separation be-tween the “State” and the “Mosque/Church” yet based on a clear natio-nal identity proclaiming that Egypt is a moderate Arab country withIslamic identity and character since the majority of its population (wellover %) are Muslims. This idea of clear national identity should rein-force freedom of religious practice for all Egyptians regardless of theirreligious doctrine. This also means that the rule of law should be civiliannot religious. It further means that all Egyptians should be united asEgyptians sharing the same problems and suffering the same pains re-gardless of what religious doctrines they might hold. Like human beings,countries should also have their own unique personality. I also expect

Egypt’s new leadership to build more bridges with the European Unionand the Western world based on the understanding of Egypt’s sovereignrights.

Blerta Selenica: I would like to see more accountable political leaders,accepting responsibility for their failures and willing to compromise forthe greater good of all citizens.

Martín Arévalo de Léon: I would like to see political leaders who aremore aware of the challenge involved in the fact that large parts of thepopulation are marginalized, have no access to basic social services and

lack the opportunity to participate in high-skilled labor that drives eco-nomic development. They should be more authentic in terms of thepeople’s desires and expectations, but also have a sound knowledge ofthe limits and constraints of the paths to follow.



we_special_ /



Interview with Ismael Khatib

I met Ismael Khatib for the first time at the opening of Cinema Jenin in August 2010. It still gives me goose bumps when I think about the first screening of “Heart of Jenin” in Jenin. And so does Ismael’s story. It’s hard to look into his melancholyeyes without thinking how apocalyptic it must be to lose one’s own child. As a mother of a boy myself, this goes beyond everything else in sheer horror …No matter what the driving forces behind Ismael’s decision were – I’d say that Ismael did something truly extraordinary.And to quote Gandhi as I’ve done in our headline “You’ve got to be the change you want to see!” Instead of seeking revengeIsmael’s family allowed his son’s organs to be transplanted into Israeli children. Ahmed’s heart went to Sameh, a Druze girl inPklin; one kidney went to Mohamed, a Bedouin boy in the Negev; and the other to Menuha Rivka, an Orthodox Jewish girl in Jerusalem. But the story doesn’t end with the transplants. Ismael Khatib still travels to visit the families and children that received his son’s organs. He is truly building a bridge between Israelis and Palestinians. On a very personal level he is driving

the peace process between these two countries forward and is a shining example – not appreciated by everybody in Jenin –which goes far beyond any political argument. A true leader in this so deeply irrational conflict.The interview that follows is very personal in nature.

Thank you to Fakhri Hamad for being our interpreter during our conversation. And thank you toYoussef Meddah for listening to the audio file in Arabic and giving us the important details!

we_special_ /

You’ve Got To Be TheChange You Want To See!

# Heart of Jenin, cinema jenin, Ahmed, Sameh, Pklin, Menuha, Israel-Palestine conflict, last victim,no more war, Palestinians, Freedom, Peace now, peace culture

> related articlesKen Robinson (p. ), J.P. Rangaswami (p. ), Lee Bryant (p. ), Sabine Donner (p. )



we_special_ /

Ismael Khatib... was born in 1965 in the Jenin refugee camp after his fa-mily was expelled from its home in a village near Haifa in1948. He grew up in Jenin and as a young man joined theFatah movement. He participated in the First Intifada,the Palestinian uprising, and was imprisoned by Israel

on three different occasions. After he was released for thethird time, following his father’s advice, he quit the Fatah,got married and opened a clothes store. He later closed this store and opened a car repair shop which was shut down when the separation barrier was built by Israel.He had six children when his son, Ahmed, was shot by anIsraeli soldier who mistook the toy rifle he was playing withfor a real one. Ismael’s momentous decision to donatehis son’s organs, to Arab as well as Jewish patients, received great international attention. It was documented in thefilm “Heart from Jenin”, and became the inspiration for

the Cinema Jenin project. Recently Ismael Khatib hasopened the “Cuneo Centre for Peace”, affiliated to thecinema.



we_special_ /

Ulrike Reinhard:Ismael, by donating your son’s organs to Israeli people, youtruly took a leadership role in the Israel-Palestine conflict – at least in Jenin where you live. Why did you do so, and also what is your understanding of leadership? I mean, doing such athing, coming out of a city like Jenin and especially from the

refugee camp, you must have been aware this would be akind of watershed.

Ismael Khatib: Losing your own son is the worst thingwhich can happen to you in your life. It goes beyondanything I’ve experienced so far. It creates a hellholein you which never stops aching. So donating my son’sorgans wasn’t an easy decision, it was probably themost important and difficult decision I’ve had to takein my entire life.Donating his organs and letting them continue to live

in other children gives me at least the feeling thatAhmed is still somehow around. I loved him so much… and this is a way to see him still alive. He isn’t gonefor ever. This is my story with Ahmed.In general I believe children are the leaders of the fu-ture. They are the ones who will carry out the future,who can reach a position to make decisions and maybethey will contribute to solving this Israel-Palestine con-flict. For sure, the reaction to my decision was – andstill is – very controversial. I expected this. Jenin is oneof the places in the West Bank which suffered most

from the massacres of the Israeli army. Especially du-ring . It was hell here in Jenin and especially inthe refugee camp where I lived with my family. Many,way too many people had to die!When Ahmed was shot by the Israeli soldiers I thoughtit’s more important to find a solution for this situationthan to take revenge. When I decided to donate hisorgans to people no matter where they came from orwhat religion they belonged to, I really hoped thatAhmed would be the last victim in this conflict. Atleast among the kids. I wanted to send out this mes-

sage to make Ahmed the last victim in this conflict.

Ulrike Reinhard:

You were very active in the fight against Israel and havealready been imprisoned several times. Ismael, why did youchange your mind and why did you take this decision in atotally opposite direction. NOT taking revenge but reaching out your hand to the enemy and giving them life is a comple-tely different way of thinking …

Ismael Khatib: … Yeah. But this is what is needed. Ifinally found out. I found it out the hard way though.Living under occupation is something very difficultand I guess very hard for anyone to imagine. ThePalestinians have suffered it for more than sixty yearsnow. We’ve tried different ways, different methods

to fight against it: demonstrations, writing on walls,throwing Molotov cocktails, weapons … but still theoccupation is there. It’s still there. Nothing haschanged. And it goes on and on and on with no … noend in sight. My personal struggle, my personal fightin the very beginning was social. First of all I was try-ing to help the community. Then it escalated: I tookpart in demonstrations and then I went on to thro-wing Molotov cocktails at Israeli soldiers and theircheckpoints in town.The problem in these years, starting in with the

Intifada was that there was a lot of violence on bothsides. There were a lot of suicide bombings in Israeland the Israeli army overran Palestine … and in it hit my son. Ahmed.This was so painful, so gut-wrenching – I can’t expressit in words. To lose a member of your own familywhom you love so much – Ahmed, my son – he wasgone. I had lost my son. Why? What for? Who wouldbe next? This moment of my life made me change myway of thinking. I was ready to find a philosophy, anew philosophy, different from the one I used to have.

I started thinking about setting up a new initiative andsending a new message to Israel and the entire world:The fight has to stop! No more war! I wanted to tell allthe Israeli women who are also losing their sons andtheir children that it is now time to put an end to thisconflict.This is why I reached out to the enemy and madepeace with them.

Ulrike Reinhard:What was the reaction on both sides? How did they take it?

Ismael Khatib: You mean in the different communi-ties, in the Israeli and Palestinian?

Ulrike Reinhard:Yes.

Ismael Khatib: During these last sixty years there weretimes of good relations between Israelis and Palesti-nians. Probably because a lot of Palestinians were



we_special_ /

working in Israel, and had a lot of Israeli friends. I wor-ked as a car mechanic in Israel. I had a lot of Israelifriends and also customers. And this was true formany Palestinians. We were even invited to celebratewith them and we invited them too. But this becameso much more complicated in with the First Inti-

fada. We can really say that our relations went com-pletely downhill – we were almost disconnected. ButI still have Israeli friends. And I have made new ones,not only with the families who received Ahmed’s or-gans, but also with different people throughout theIsraeli community.There is a huge and very important difference bet-ween those who command this terrible occupationand the Israeli people who want to live in peace just asmuch as we do. I know that.So what I can say about the feedback to my decision

is that far more than people from both sides, bothPalestinians and Israelis, contacted me as a key per-son, wanting to contribute and help to support fin-ding a solution to finally put an end to this conflict ina peaceful and permanent way.

Ulrike Reinhard:

It always seems that even though there is a “WE” among the people, on a political level there is no “WE” at all. So,couldn’t your example be something like a role model for politicians?

Ismael Khatib: In the Israeli community, the peoplethemselves, they don’t play any big role in makingpeace because the Israeli community is controlled bythe military. The military, they don’t believe in “WE”,they believe much more in “I”. If they weren’t con-trolled and steered by the military, if WE the peoplecould have a say – WE would have solved the problema long time ago. We would be living in peace!We need people in Israel who believe in peace, whobelieve in WE. Who believe in WE as human beings.

Then peace would be an easy step to make.The Palestinians support my decision. PresidentMahmud Abbas personally called me and supportsme everywhere I go. So do the other ministers andambassadors of Palestine. Most Palestinians are pacificpeople – we love peace and we love the idea of a freesovereign Palestinian state – with Israel as a fairneighbor. Even Zacharias Sbadi, the former chief ofthe Al Aqsa Brigade who figured at the top of the Is-raeli military’s liquidation list believed in WE and sup-

ported my decision. He wrote several letters to methat I am not going to donate to the Israelis, I will do-nate them to people, to humanity.What I see is that all of us are humans and WE are thesons of Abraham, we and the Israelis. WE feel thesame – but the politicians are always trying to sepa-

rate us, to provoke us and they always keep the fireburning. They don’t see us as “equals”. But WE are.And this is what I am living for now.This has nothing to do with what the politicians andmilitary people want and do.It’s the very reverse of that …

Ulrike Reinhard:Ismael, when you now see what’s going on in Tunisia, inEgypt, and to some extent in Jordan, that people really gointo the streets and drive change – can this be a role model

for your own activities? Could you think about starting something even bigger? Do you see anything in Palestine likethis? The people standing up together against politicians?

Ismael Khatib: This is what I am trying to do every-where I go. I talk to people. I am an ambassador ofthis WE. WE as people have to walk together and putpressure on the politicians to change the situation.Israelis and Palestinians but also the internationalcommunity. Peace can only come from those peoplewho aren’t in high places, people who are down at the

grassroots level. It can’t come from those in high places.

Ulrike Reinhard:What does it take to get such a movement started?What does it really take before the people stand up, go ontothe streets and really demand it?

Ismael Khatib: I believe we still need a lot of effort.Our movement – if I can call it a movement at all – isstill in its infancy. There is a long way to go. And itneeds a lot of energy and strength. Many people from

all over the world need to participate and get invol-ved. years ago there were only a few hundredpeople engaged in the peace process. Today there arethousands … and hopefully in a few years there willbe millions.Today in Germany maybe one million people areaware of our conflict. Maybe a few more. But this isnot enough. We need more. Many more people haveto believe in peace and act to bring it about! Freedomneeds a lot of strength and persistence. Many people



we_special_ /

still don’t know much or anything at all about Pale-stine and our conflict. I’ve met people all over Europewho thought Palestine was Afghanistan! With my en-gagement and with my initiative I spread the wordand raised awareness. On my tours I tell the worldabout the occupation and about my solution – and in

doing so the movie “Heart of Jenin” helps me a lot. SoI do think I’m making an impact and helping achievea solution. Even though the Israelis don’t always likeit and sometimes make it difficult for me to travel.But I am sure that the number of people who wantpeace will grow. I’ll give you an example. Peace Now,which is an Israeli peace movement, started with lessthan one hundred followers. Now they are thousands.And it’s like that everywhere. Revolutions are happe-ning everywhere. So the fact that there are peacefulrevolutions in the Arab world will show the world that

the Arab peoples want peace! We need a lot of peopleto contribute and this takes time. It’s a process. Weneed everyone who is interested in peace to partici-pate in some kind of peace initiative.

Ulrike Reinhard:In the beginning you said that the kids are the leaders of our future. I think education is crucial to this whole process. Thekids on both sides seem to grow up in an environment wherethey get told that the other side is the enemy. They are raised in hate. How can they ever become peaceful leaders?

If we numb them by hammering hatred and fear into their minds, if governments and media build up a world of distrust and fear … how can we ever convince these kids that they have a chance to make change happen?

Ismael Khatib: I agree with you one hundred percent.The last sixty years of teaching and educating kids –and even adults – about the very worst aspects of theenemy on the other side, this will not lead to any-thing. It will just keep this conflict running and run-ning and running.

I believe that there need to be schools and peace cen-ters in Palestine and Israel which teach something wecould call a “peace culture”. If we start this now – andI already started my cultural institution two years ago– we need maybe ten more years before we can rollout a real peace process. This is what I am doing. Ican’t influence the politicians – at least not all of them– to build schools which teach a culture of peace …

That’s why I started my centre and that’s why I am stillinvolved in the Cinema Jenin project. I want people tolive and breathe a culture of peace.It all needs time though. It’s a very slow process. Wehave to change people’s minds and their behavior. Wecan now see the very first positive results from our

work. The cinema brought together two families whoused to consider themselves enemies. Yael from Haifawho lost her husband in a suicide bombing and thefamily of the suicide bomber became friends. Theycame together and now they are good friends. Andthis is part of the peace culture which we are teaching.

Ulrike Reinhard:Do you think there are many people out there who sharethis kind of understanding?

Ismael Khatib: No, not yet. To be very honest, evenhere in Jenin – where all this happened – they don’t.We are facing a lot of difficulties from those still inpower, from the authorities. In all kinds of ways theyprevent us from going forward in teaching peace cul-ture. They are fighting us.We had to stop some programs with the Israelis. Wedidn’t want to lose the community so we stoppedthem. There are still many among us who are NOTinterested in peace, who have the power to suppressinitiatives like ours, people who are simply corrupt.

They are very influential, much more influential thanwe are.

Ulrike Reinhard:Ismael, thank you so very much!



we_special_ /

reatWeb

itesoreadership

Wikipedia: Leadership

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leadership

Please dive into the discussion

and talk sections as well!

LeaderTalk

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/LeaderTalk/

LeaderTalk began in February as the first group blog

by school leaders for schoolleaders. Since then it hasbecome “the place to go”for insightful, thoughtful,

reflective commentary aboutwhat it means to be a P-administrator today. Leader-Talk expresses the voice ofthe administrator, a voice thatoften goes unheard in thisera of school reform.It is a vibrant online commu-nity of superintendents, prin-cipals, educational leadershipprofessors, and central office

administrators.

The MIT Center forDigital Business

http://ebusiness.mit.edu/

The MIT Center for DigitalBusiness was founded in .Their mission is to be the leading source of innovation,knowledge creation, dissemi-nation and utilization, in ma-nagement theory and practicefor Digital Business.

Open Leadership

and Enterprise .

http://communities.cilip.org.uk/blogs/update/achive/ / / /open-leadership-enterprise- - -the-practices-that-can-make-them-real.aspx

Open Leadership could be thecatalyst for positive changesthat workplace visionarieshave long dreamed of. But to

break through everyday orga-nisational inertia there is a keyingredient that is still missing:ongoing practices in organisa-tional awareness and reframingthat can undo the cycles ofdefensive behaviour that evensmart and well-meaningpeople create in their work-places. This article gives somegreat links and examples on

open leadership.

Imagining the Futureof Leadership

http://blogs.hbr.org/imagining-the-future-of-leadership/

Harvard Business Review –A six-week blog series onhow leadership might lookin the future.



Knowing vs. Learning

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/jan /ca_ .htm

Perhaps the three most impor-tant words in a leader’s voca-bulary are “I don’t know.”These words, followed by anempowering phrase such as“but let’s figure it out,” are

the keys to the innovationcastle. Fearless humility expo-ses possibilities. Great leadersunderstand that when youare afraid to expose yourown fear, ignorance, or blindspots, you are shutting outthe very people – members ofyour team – who could helpyou make inspired connectionsthat spur innovation.

International YouthLeadership Network

http://iyln.org/

The International YouthLeadership Network is an

online forum is a full-featuredsocial network designed tofoster interaction and long-lasting connections betweenyoung leaders passionateabout the change and diffe-rence they can bring about tothis world. The IYLN bringstogether young people inter-ested in unique capacity buil-ding programs that strengthen

their leadership potential, aswell as professionals interestedin mentoring these futureworld leaders.

Deep Democracy Institute

http://www.deepdemocracy-institute.org/

The Deep Democracy Institutewas created in . It is athink tank that researches thevarious spoken and unspokenissues on on our globe fordeveloping multidimensionalleadership, that thinks rightand feels right.

Leadership .

Fast Company – A letterfrom the founding editors.Just check the date ;-)Yes, May , !

Ten Fatal FlawsThat Derail Leaders

http://hbr.org/ / /ten-fatal-flaws-that-derail-leaders/sb

Harvard Business Review –The Ten biggest mistakes ofLeadership.

we_special_ /



we_special_ /



we_special_ /

conversations



A conversation between Peter Kruse and Thomas Sattelberger

Peter Kruse and Thomas Sattelberger met in July 2010 in Bonn for a three hour conversation on how theinternet and the speed and scale of its complexity is challenging a huge company like Deutsche Telekom AG.Sattelberger described the change as “a dramatic transformation. While change used to be incremental or step-by-step, change is now something whose intensity and complexity we have no way of anticipating.There’s no textbook or manual you can read to prepare yourself for it.” He agreed with Kruse that network or-ganizations are much more “elastic” in absorbing the pressure for change and scale and much more“responsive” due to the multiplicity of perspectives they contain.

we_special_ /

Rien ne va plus!So Let’s Start A New Game!

# enterprise . , push culture, pull culture, entrepreneurship, business models, hierarchy,networks, corporate culture, competition, self-organization, “level three” leadership,reflection, blog, network, Deutsche Telekom, Nextpractice, change, tit for tat, openess

> related articles:Don Tapscott (p. ), John Hagel III (p. ), Martin Spilker (p. ), Hermann Demmel (p. ),



we_special_ /

ter Kruseis managing partner of nextpractice GmbH and honoraryofessor for general and organizational psychology at theniversity of Bremen. The main focus of his work is on thevelopment of new methods for the promotion and use of llective intelligence and the professionalization of entrepre-

urship as a means of building a stabilizing form of culture.

homas Sattelbergerborn in 1949, Thomas Sattelberger has been executiverector for human resources at Deutsche Telekom AG since07. His previous engagements were with Continental AG,

eutsche Lufthansa AG and Daimler Benz AG. His mainterests are in strategic planning for human resources,obal talent management and international labor costsanagement.



we_special_ /

we_magazine:When push and pull-strategies collide, is this the point wherethe downside of Enterprise 2.0/Web 2.0 becomes tangible?

Sattelberger: When it comes to Enterprise . I’m al-ways worried about whether people are exploiting

themselves. The unconditional way they devote them-selves to a particular issue or to the network itself. Ihave to ask myself how I can avoid becoming autisticand how I can achieve a proper work-life-balance. Andhow I can build a suitable framework for the em-ployees here at Deutsche Telekom. The networkmodel comes most starkly to the forefront in start-upcorporate cultures and their dedication to / avai-lability. In a major corporation like ours we also needto ask how individual staff members are coping withthe issue. Can a company dispose of its employees just

as it pleases – anytime, anywhere? I don’t think so. Forinstance, we have introduced an email policy thatexplicitly states that employees have the right NOT torespond to emails over the weekend.

Kruse: And this leads us on to a really fascinatingpoint. We need to distinguish between two forms ofculture that are fundamentally different. On the onehand we’re talking about a push culture in whicheverything, as it were, has its own hierarchical orderand beat. And obviously / availability is an affront

to any company whose culture is based on targetagreements, control structures, and a primary focuson management and regulation. Employees are sub-ject to relentless pressure which they have no meansof avoiding. So when a company introduces a pushculture to operate new media, the outlook becomesvery bleak for the people who work there. Becauseself-motivation is then indirectly turned into self-ex-ploitation – controlled, as it were, from top-down.

Sattelberger: Yes indeed. We talk about Enterprise .from two quite different perspectives. On the onehand we talk about Enterprise . in terms of the oldcorporate logic like availability, control, directives andperformance management, and on the other aboutEnterprise . as a pull culture – to elaborate on your

term – as a kind of laid-back entrepreneurship that’syoung, cool, edgy, back to nature and individualistic.These are two completely different worlds which weneed to address very seriously as Deutsche Telekom.Because there’s no doubt in my mind that here we arefacing a potential downside of Web . .

Kruse: If you live in a corporate culture which is morein line with the old logic than the technical opportu-nities Web . offers, you really expose it to the dan-ger of misuse. That’s true enough. And I’m ever so

slightly anxious about this because in doing so yourun the danger of destroying the positive aspects. Andthat’s exactly the point where the exploitation criti-que kicks in. This means that it’s important and abso-lutely essential for leaders and managers to simply pulltheir weight in shaping and steering the transitionfrom a push culture to an aspirational, inspirational cul-ture of pull.

we_magazine:

How would you rate the risk that “open knowledge” turns

people into motivated day laborers handing on their intellectual capital?

Kruse: There’s no risk at all. From the moment I feedintellectual capital into a network I – as an individual –become and remain attractive for this particularnetwork. And whenever you’re attractive within a net-work, whenever you add value to the network, youwill get something back. That’s just the way networksfunction.

Sattelberger: Does this apply to companies as well?

Kruse: Yes. And with it we quickly come to the pointwhere we have to discuss applicable business modelsand how to allocate the capital gained.

Sattelberger: OK, the question of value and counter-value. There too I think that initial enthusiasm ...



we_special_ /

Kruse: … can pretty soon have the dampers put on it.

Sattelberger: Yes.

Kruse: That’s right! But even so, there are still certainbasic rules in the network which can prevent this hap-

pening. One of them, for instance is “tit for tat”. Thismeans that if my trust has once been misused in thenetwork, then I will withdraw from that network. Thisis the highest damage I can inflict on it – no matter ifI act as an individual or a company. An almost allergicreaction.

Sattelberger: Which shows that work with and inthe network is really work that carries a great deal ofdignity.

Kruse: Carries dignity and confers it on both sides. Ina network you really have to be very straight forwardand very open, and you simply have to bear in mindthat withdrawal from a network really is a hard hittingpenalty. Normally you’d always ask yourself whereyour power in the network comes from. The powerfulperson in a network is the one who feeds in, who addsvalue, who creates benefits, it’s usually not the per-son with the money.In networks the people with the real power are theconsumers and customers – it’s no longer providers

of goods and services. And the same is true in com-panies. In the next few years we’ll most likely see thatemployees will become a lot more aware of the powerthey hold. Power is no longer structured in hierarchiesfrom the top down; it’s something that employeeswant to share in too. And if the company doesn’t letthem participate or fails to nurture the right kind ofenvironment – well, their names might still be on thepayroll but they are blocking out company ideas. Andwho’s going to pick up the bill for the damage? At theend of the day it will be the company itself.

we_magazine:This seems to turn corporate culture into a key strategic issue for the company ...

Kruse: It sure does! Strategically speaking, creatingand building such a corporate culture is absolutelycrucial because it has been elevated to a new level ofimportance by the advent of networks.

Sattelberger: Enterprise . deals with hierarchies andpower, informality and relationships, collaborationand openness. In my opinion these are all key valuesin this “new” corporate culture which haven’t reachedtheir full potential in today’s business world. Whatwe’re seeing now is only their first budding.

Kruse: Basically this “new” type of corporate cultureneeds to nurture two drivers. Firstly, it needs to pro-vide space to manage creative processes, to shareknowledge and thus extract the maximum amount ofcreativity from the system that’s possible this side ofself-exploitation.And secondly, it must address the fact that we’re notgoing to get one step further with purely competitivemodels. In the next few years we’re going to see to-tally new forms of cooperation between companies,

new forms of both horizontal and vertical coopera-tion. Cooperation has taken on a new dimension ofmeaning for companies, and they are now investig-ating new ways of vertical and horizontal workingpartnerships.To give you an example, integration between manu-facturers and suppliers is now being completely re-engineered. Beforehand the model was that buyingfrom suppliers put the manufacturer under pressureand that you extracted maximum added value throughthe negotiation of good prices. Nowadays this is no

longer enough. Nowadays we are in a situation wherepeople realize that they have to work together toopen up new markets. And this realization all of a sud-den is breaking down company boundaries. Compa-nies are ready to collaborate in a totally new andhighly dynamic way.

Sattelberger: But then what we’re basically speakingabout is that the way in which we shape competitionhas developed from monopolistic types of competi-tion – swallowing competitors as we’ve seen in the

recent waves of mergers and acquisitions – into ahighly cooperative type of competition of the sort wesee with strategic alliances and networks.

Kruse: Yes. I think that’s exactly the kind of directionit’s taking. New technologies are a vital factor in drasti-cally reducing the costs of cooperation. We now havethe technological opportunities to drive this kind ofcooperation forward. Beforehand, it used to be muchmore cost intensive and so it was always much chea-



we_special_ /

per to stay securely within company boundaries. Inother words, cooperation is set to be a key competi-tive factor – however absurd this may sound at firsthearing.

we_magazine:

Does this “new” corporate culture demand new management structures and leadership?

Sattelberger: (laughing) That’s a very difficult ques-tion to ask of someone like me with my patriarchalstyle of leadership! But seriously it’s a very importantissue and I do worry about it! How should I changemyself? What should the frameset look like for myemployees? Where are the boundaries?

Kruse: When I talk about self-organization, new ma-

nagement structures and leadership, I often hear criti-cisms to the effect that I’m moving too much on thelevel of general principles and not going into suffi-cient detail – that I’m not sufficiently specific. Even so,I still think that as soon as you start to reflect on theseissues you have to elevate the form of leadership intoa higher form of abstraction. You are working on buil-ding the frameset. You no longer have, so to speak, theopportunity to delve into all the operational detailsbecause that’s an area in which you really have to pro-vide maximum room for maneuver and development.

The question that needs to be asked here is how canI create this framework and have it accepted by all thestakeholders in a company? And here we are up onthe values level.

Which is often a difficult level to deal with. I totallyagree with you because basically it’s leadership on ametalevel – “level three” leadership above command-and-control and also above performance contracting.And this level isn’t more simple, it’s more complicated.What I’m increasingly concerned with are questions

like does my style of leadership allow my association,the social organism, to remain intact? So that my ex-pertise stays there and feels at home. How diversifiedmust a system become to be responsive to outside in-fluences? But also to what extent does the strength ofthe system depend on the integrity of its players? I cansee from my own experience that I now take much lon-ger periods of reflection in my interactions with peo-ple. And that outcomes are often much more openthan they used to be.

Kruse: On this level of principles and values a leader– or actually anybody in the system – has to be awareof the fact, that it’s increasingly important that youyourself become your own role model – that you walkthe talk, as it were. People will no longer assess youby your operational side, they’ll rather tend to eva-

luate you on your values-based side. Are you actingand leading according to your values? This is a tre-mendous upgrading of the importance of the rolemodel function within the concept of leadership.Competence in some field of expertise no longerstands alone as a quality for leadership; in future whatwill carry clout are role models on the values level.And this could certainly lead to the situation in whichan employee much further down the hierarchy has infact a lot more to say than me, the leader at the top ...

Sattelberger: … and in order to achieve this, we ma-nagers have to become actors within the network.

Kruse: (laughing) I’m pleased to hear you say that!This is the central point. It’s crucial! What you reallyhave to do is to dive into the networks, “swim” in it asif it were the most natural thing in the world and sim-ply become part of it. You as one among many others.That’s the only way of finding out which directions thevarious currents are taking, and it’s the only way ofgetting network feedback to the impulses you feed in.

Sattelberger: As a manager I lead an election cam-paign for the hearts and minds of other network par-ticipants.

Kruse: Yes, you’ve got to keep pitching for reputationand resonance.

Sattelberger: Even though as a member of the exe-cutive board you wield power through your functionnowadays it’s becoming increasingly obvious that

managers can’t survive when they aren’t accepted bytheir people. When they lose the assent of theirpeople, they become hollow shells, empty vessels withno heart and soul in the network. This is somethingwe mangers have to recognize and accept.



we_special_ /

we_magazine:How do you yourself operate in these networks?

Sattelberger: I am clearly dependent on help fromother people. Producing something unique like a blogpost requires a great deal of energy. People help me

– for instance by researching the hard facts. In thatway I can produce something in minutes whichotherwise would take me twice the time. Every nowand then when it’s a particularly “hot” topic, I make apersonal intervention and give the subject my perso-nal imprint.

Take, for instance, my blog post on women’s quotas inthe company where I intervened on two particularpoints. Although – you’re always better off with thebenefit of hindsight – my intervention should have

been a lot more “personal” in nature. I was too „stickto the rules“, too “statesman-like”. I think in networksyou have to be much more direct, crystal clear and au-thentic than in traditional types of communicationwhose style is often colored by propaganda and toohifaluting – which simply puts people off. So here tooI am facing another challenge: I have to find MY wayin terms of how I comment and argue.

Kruse: I think so too. You have to be to the point andquick off the mark. If you are authentic, you can be

quick on the draw because all that PR-polishing isn’tneeded any more.

Sattelberger: Yepp.And then there’s also the question of how much timeI spend networking. At the moment I’m none too surehow much time I can allow myself. I do feel that thenetwork is a place I should be in order to respondspontaneously, quickly, directly and authentically –and to keep in touch with what’s going on. So I needto rethink the way my work is organized. And that’s

another true challenge. “Networking time” doesn’t yetfigure on the agenda of a board member at DeutscheTelekom.

we_magazine:How far would you subscribe to the idea that corporate cul-ture – or communication to the inside – is only the flipside of brand communication or communication to the outside? And that the more a company masters this synchronization, thebetter a market player it will be.

Sattelberger: Pressure to synchronize is clearly in-creasing. Organizations are diversified and have manyvoices. But you have to hear the melody when thechoir sings. And the melody clearly refers to the valuesof a company while the voices are more brand-related.

Kruse: Actually it’s always been the case that brandsdon’t belong to the company but rather to the dis-course between company customers. Only now –driven by social media – this fact has become startlin-

gly obvious for the first time. And the contradictionsare becoming steadily more visible too: everybody canspot them straight away.

Sattelberger: This means that at some point the themeof Enterprise . will also be reflected in a higherbrand authenticity and – hopefully – a brand identitywith fewer contradictions.

Kruse: You can actually take this idea a very long way.If company employees become participants in the

discourse on the brand, then they really do becomebrand ambassadors – as we used to say about com-pany field reps. Nowadays it’s not the field reps whoare brand ambassadors, it’s all the company staff. Theentire company! And so straight away there’s thequestion: how should we react when individual em-ployees post a comment on a company or a brand andsuddenly trigger an avalanche?

Sattelberger: Would you advise taking disciplinaryaction against them?

Kruse: Certainly not! But you’ve got to be clear aboutexactly what you’re doing when you open the flood-gates and the waters start to gush. Because there’s nocertain outcome as to how things are going to deve-lop. And once you’ve released water, it f lows ...



we_special_ /

Sattelberger: That’s also something I worry about –just how much the floodgates should be opened? Youcan’t open them just a bit! When they’re open, they’recompletely open, not just slightly ajar ...

Kruse: … that’s the way it is! Difficult to control!

Sattelberger: … sure! When management and staffoperate within the same network, when all the variousdepartments in a company do so, when all these day-to-day cultural interactions bear fruit, the risks of thefloodgates opening is tremendously reduced. So evenwhen someone “sends up a rocket” the majority ofpeople will raise their voices and say we don’t see itthat way at all.

Kruse: Yes, this is an experience you can really make.

When a company has a resonant baseline, so to speak,discourse will not turn into scandal – it will alwaysstart to balance itself out. This is simply the way net-works function.

Let me highlight another benefit companies canachieve when they and their employees become partof the network. They gain a certain understanding ofthe social dynamics in their environment that can behighly profitable and beneficial to the company. Whenwe have company staff engaging with these dynamics,

we have people who are very close to the brand.People who simply know what’s happening with thebrand. Many retail companies are really proud to seetheir employees becoming something like highly desir-able and sought-after network partners for their custo-mers. Customers make special efforts to engage withparticular staff members endowed with a particularexpertise in the network – quite independently ofwhere these people stand in the organizational struc-ture. This is very well worthwhile developing becauseit offers a different kind of representation. A repre-

sentation which strengthens ties to the customer.

Sattelberger: Once again, this underlines the increa-sing importance of values in corporate culture.Brand ambassadors can turn into brand renegades.And when that happens big time, it’s pretty dange-rous. It creates a kind of whirlpool effect. The morepeople are active in the network, the more we mana-gers are forced to promote internet democracy andset the frame!

Kruse: Thank you. That is a key statement I can im-mediately subscribe to. The fact that we are intensi-fying our work with this network on the outsideconstrains us to adopt this network culture on theinside. Traditional internal power structures have sim-ply begun to totter. And this means that the issue of

power is one that we’re going to spend a lot of timeon over the next few years. Don’t you agree?

Sattelberger: A rather flippant remark has just cometo mind which says – most things in life are to do withsex and love, money ... and power, the basic forcesand motivations that drive people. The really inter-esting question is whether in fact the Web can workagainst this human genetic wiring – whether the Webcan induce large-scale, long-term change in powerstructures? Has the network really got the power to

tame – or to put it more elegantly – to sublimate basichuman dynamics?

Kruse: What we are now involved in is nothing lessthan re-writing the story of how business should bedone or – on an even broader basis – how nationsshould be governed. It’s a complete reversal of whatwe’ve known so far! Today, however, we are dealingwith a situation where consumers, customers andcitizens sometimes wield more power than companiesand governments themselves.

And at least I’ve learned that when we change therules in a system, we pretty much start a new game.And if you ask me how the game will end, I’d just say –let’s first start to play it! Even so, with regard to com-panies I’m already pretty certain that if they don’tchange their rules they’re going to have long-termproblems in the globally networked markets we nowhave.



ephen Denningis the author of some award-winning books. His most cent work, The Leader’s Guide to Radical Management:e-inventing the Workplace for the 21st Century was selected

800-CEO-READ as one of the best five books on manage-ent in 2010. From 1996 to 2000, Steve was the Program

rector, Knowledge Management at the World Bank wherespearheaded the World Bank’s award-winning knowledge

aring program. In November 2000, he was selected as onethe world’s ten Most Admired Knowledge Leaders (Teleos).eve now works with organizations in the U.S., Europe, Asiad Australia on leadership, innovation, business narratived most recently, radical management.

uis Suarezhas been working at IBM for 14 years. In that time he’s

ecialised in the fields of Knowledge Management, Collabo-tion, Community Building and for the last 9 years in So-al Computing (Enterprise 2.0) and Social Software. He isrrently working within the BlueIQ team, at IBM Software,a KMer, Community Builder and Social Computing

vangelist, helping accelerate the take-up of social softwareth inside and outside the firewall. In his spare time, he hasen running a rather successful experiment to ditch corpo-e email and rely more heavily on social software tools. It

as featured in the New York Times.

we_special_ /



we_special_ /

Luis Suarez: Steve, in your book you mention the con-cept of “new localism” as perhaps an opportunity tohelp shape the leadership of the st century, in aworld that is rather distributed, global and virtual.How do you envision the role of leadership as the keybalance that would need to happen between that new

localism and our global culture / economy? Do youthink that both local and global leaders could co-existin a sustainable manner by taking their clients to ahigher level?

Stephen Denning: I refer to “the new localism” inwhich a number of books have been written about thepossibility of returning to a more local approach towork in order to combat the malfunctions of the mo-dern workplace. Books such as The Craftsman by Ri-chard Sennett, Deep Economy by Bill McKibben and

Shop Class as Soulcraft, by Matthew Crawford. Forthese writers, the solution to big business is smallbusiness. Yet my conclusion is that these calls for a re-turn to a local approach to work are romantic but un-realistic. There is no way that the local store is goingto be able to produce a flat-screen television. So longas people want flat-screen televisions or their equiva-lent, globalization is here to stay. As a general econo-mic theory, the new localism may be nutty, but I alsopoint to the grain of truth within it: the importance ofa clear line of sight from those doing the work to

those for whom the work is intended, and the possi-bility of focusing work on delighting those people asa way of relieving the threat to the human spirit posedby boring, meaningless labor.

Luis Suarez: That’s a very good point, Steve, and Iwholeheartedly agree that globalisation is here tostay. However, I would like to point out that there maybe smarter ways of remaining global, but with localexecution; starting with small things like transport ofgoods, mainly food supplies, for instance. I wouldn’t

say that it could replace globalisation, but it can cer-tainly help it to become smarter in its execution sothat resources are utilised more wisely. I think thataspect of sustainable economy is going to become rat-her important for businesses to survive and also asan indication of how they too can become morehuman, as you hinted above. I think that new localism,as romantic and unrealistic as it may sound, will helpglobalisation wake up and smarten up on how it exe-cutes across the globe.

Stephen Denning: The new localism is a wonderfulthing, so far as it goes. But it’s romantic and unreali-stic to think that it can replace the global economy.It’s a question of scale.

Luis Suarez: I agree and I am not saying that it is going

to replace globalisation, by far (Although I wish itwould eventually ;-)). But what I think it’s going to dois to help us understand how globalisation needs tosmarten up on how certain business processes andmodus operandi work. With simple things like why doI have to purchase apples grown in Italy when on myown island they are grown in an amazing quality andare cheaper to the consumer. Plus the new localism ofbuying from folks who “know” you. However, thereare some aspects of globalisation, like purchases ofelectronics, that will remain global. I think it’s going to

be a combination of the two that will help us intro-duce the concept of a sustainable economy, becauseso far the global one alone has only got us into trou-ble. Like I said, I am not saying it’s negative, just say-ing it needs to become smarter, and closer to thecustomer.

Stephen Denning: I agree that the new localism canhelp us achieve insights in the global marketplace. It’simportant however to draw the RIGHT lesson, which isnot, “Let’s do everything locally!”. The right lesson is:

“Let’s delight our clients the way local firms do!”

Luis Suarez: One of the things that surprised me tre-mendously in your book is how powerfully it advoca-tes a new kind of leadership/management where,above all other values and traits, the main characteristicdemanded from this new kind of leadership is beinghuman. Is the business world humanising the enter-prise? What role do you think social computing willplay in helping accelerate this transformation and ma-king us all more human, touching on those insights

you shared in some of the stories about the benefitsfrom this new localism?

Stephen Denning: I agree that this is mainly about ashift from a focus on things to a focus on people. In re-trospect, we can see that the th century was a gi-gantic experiment to see how far we could get byfocusing on people as things. Much was achieved. Thestandard of living in rich countries increased by afactor of fifty in the course of the century. But by the



we_special_ /

end of the century the experiment had come unstuck.Both customers and employees had come to resentbeing manipulated as things. So organizations startedbecoming less and less productive. By contrast, firmsthat treated their employees and customers as peoplewere able to delight their customers and began put-

ting the thing-driven bureaucracies out of business.We’re still in the early stages of the transition, but youcan already see the impact in terms of the perfor-mance of old stalwarts like GE and Walmart, compa-red to Apple and Amazon.

Luis Suarez: These are some very good points, Steve.I see that same transition you mention from a focuson things to a focus on people as the transition froma labour based economy into a knowledge based one.The so-called knowledge economy of the st century

surely makes perfect sense when you think about howcrucial and critical the role of knowledge will be-come.

However, how do you envision that leaders of labourbased companies will be making that transition intoknowledge based ones, where they need to empowertheir employees to take plenty more responsibility, ifthey are not willing to let go of control and still thinkthey can rule through command and control? Whatsteps do leaders need to embark on in order to help

that transition be as smooth as possible? Or do youthink it will be done rather disruptively, in a semi re-volutionary fashion?

Stephen Denning: I spell out in the book how variouscompanies have made the transition. None has doneit “disruptively, in a semi-revolutionary fashion.” In-stead, the revolution happens through economic for-ces: if the firm doesn’t delight the client, the firm goesout of business.

Luis Suarez: I am glad to see that they haven’t revolu-tionalised the way they work, but are rather preparingthemselves for a natural path of evolution into whatthey want to be in the st century. Alas, we have torecognise as well that not all businesses out there willmake that transition. Like you said, they will probablycease to exist. I just hope their number doesn’t exceedthe number of those which evolve. Or perhaps itshould ...

Stephen Denning: I hope all of them learn andchange, rather than die. I am doing my best to achievethat. However realistically, not all will survive. Thedeath rate is accelerating. The life expectancy of a firmin the Fortune is down from around years halfa century ago to currently under years, and hea-

ding towards years, if things continue as now.

Luis Suarez: That’s also another very good point andit seems to come pretty close to the perception of howbusinesses penetrate markets in the millions; the ty-pical example of how radio, TV, cinema, then Face-book, iPhones and its Apps have reached millions in amuch shorter period of time seems to reflect howmuch shorter they stick around in the markets, if theyare not capable of adapting themselves to the newlaws of how markets operate.

I find it rather interesting to see all of this, workingmyself for a company that on June th this year willbe marking its th anniversary. I myself have beenworking there for aslong as that average of yearsfor most of the Fortune . Flexibility and adaptabilityto the markets is surely going to remain a key aspectof how businesses want to prevail over the course ofdecades.

But let me ask the next question Steve: I was wonde-

ring whether you feel our current leadership will be ca-pable of transforming themselves into becoming morehuman, and therefore more sustainable both withinthe corporate world and our society. Or rather do wehave to wait for a new generation to make that happen?Do you envision our current leadership giving up theircontrol, power and greed that easily? How much is re-ally at stake to provoke that radical management shift?

Stephen Denning: I believe that the change will hap-pen inexorably because it is driven by the economics.

The new organizations will put the old ones out ofbusiness. In this respect, the creative destruction ofcapitalism really does work. For these old-school ma-nagers and organizations, the writing is on the wall:change or die. In the arena of health care, we haveseen that people faced with the choice of behavioralchange or death, often choose death. So some mana-gers will cling to the current ways of acting until theyare forced out of their jobs and out of business. Ot-hers will embrace the change and move into the fu-



we_special_ /

ture. It’s hard to say now what the proportions will be.Obviously, I am doing my best to persuade these ma-nagers that change is a better choice than death. Onlytime will tell how many respond.

Luis Suarez: These are some rather interesting insights

and I sure hope they will make that change and shiftgears. However, we all know that most businessestoday still self-regulate themselves based on profitshare, growth and generating more revenue. So Ithink as long as businesses keep up with these goalsit will be a challenge for them to shift. I wonder whet-her the real key element to make it work will be whatyou mentioned in your book as “delighting yourclients”, which is certainly a whole lot more than just“good enough”. Do you think that customers will usethis unique opportunity to shape up the leadership of

the corporate world and push the mantra of being de-lighted and move away from the “good enough”? Ifso, what repercussions would that provoke in the busi-ness world? Will itt be the birth of a new CRM, whatsome folks have claimed as social CRM shaping up thenext generation of leaders?

Stephen Denning: As you might say, “these are somerather interesting insights.”However it’s actually pretty simple.Firms that don’t delight their clients will go out of

business.Punto. End of story.

Luis Suarez: Not sure that I agree with you. To giveyou an example ... in various countries there are somebusinesses who still take advantage of the monopolythey have enjoyed over the decades and their pledgeof delighting the clients is almost non-existent. In fact,quite the opposite. Yet, quarter after quarter their re-venues grow big time. One example: most EuropeanTelecoms, specially in southern Europe. I think if they

have a niche to exploit they will still be around, evenif they don’t delight their clients, like a bunch of Te-lecoms is doing already.

Stephen Denning: I am talking in terms of long termtrends. It is of course possible for companies to find aniche where there is no competition, and milk it for aconsiderable period. But in the end, things catch upwith them.

As to Social CRM, the name is a horrible leftover fromthe th Century. CRM implies manipulating the cus-tomer and manufacturing demand – the very oppo-site of what I am talking about. Social CRM is not muchbetter. As one site at http://mashable.com/ // /social-crm/ puts it: “As mentioned above, I don’t

necessarily agree that Social CRM is the best name forthis kind of process because CRM has typically enabledone-way conversations with customers, with a dis-proportionate focus on technology. The name CRMstands for “customer relationship management,” whichis a misnomer because the company no longer controlsor manages the relationship – the customer does.”Social media can be a wonderful thing if it is peopletalking to people about real experiences. Once youare talking about “managing the customer relation-ship”, you are into something entirely different and

retrograde.

Luis Suarez: I was recently at a webinar event withPaul Greenberg, the coiner and father of SCRM and hisarguments were more along the lines of instead of“managing the customer relationship” it would be allabout “facilitating the customer relationship”; on hel-ping the customer be at the center of the whole equa-tion and to listening to what the customer have to sayabout one’s products. I think social tools havechanged that perspective of CRM, since most of the

customers are already interacting amongst themsel-ves and out of the control of their vendors. ThereforeSCRM, in a way, has got a lot more to do with enga-ging customers on that process of co-creation.

I am not sure it’s a legacy from the th century. Ithink it’s more an attempt to make CRMs more social,human, engaged and purposeful. More in line withwhat the customer wants and not what the vendor.

Stephen Denning: If SCRM means putting the custo-

mer at the center of the relationship, then I’m all for it.

However if you plunk such a SCRM approach into atraditional organization, in which the customer is notat the center, and the management is focusing ontweaking its value chain and achieving efficienciesthrough economies of scale and so on, then the lifeexpectancy of that SCRM approach won’t be very long.It will be crushed by the traditional management.



we_special_ /

What I am talking about in the book is not just addinga new system or approach or gadget or process to atraditional organization, but rather changing theentire organization from top to bottom so that thecustomer is at the center. There is a temptation toadopt something like SCRM because it sounds so un-

threatening. You are able to sneak something into theorganization on the basis that it’s no big deal. “Don’tworry; boss, it’s just an evolution of CRM, which neverhurt anyone, right?” That’s an easier conversation tohave than to say, “Actually, boss, we need to transformthe whole organization from top to bottom. Almosteverything you are now doing has to change. Here’swhy and here’s how other firms have done it and hereare the potential benefitis.” It’s a more difficult con-versation. But eventually, that is the conversation thatyou will need to have.

Luis Suarez: However there is one particular aspectthat I find rather important and which I think is goingto shape the very same SRCM approach you describeabove. Customers have smartened up; they knowabout each other; they talk to one another; they shareinsights on their experiences with vendors and theyhave learned to demand to be delighted by vendorsbased on the experiences of those very few firmswho’ve already understood. As we move forward wewill witness plenty more customers demanding not to

just be part of the conversation, but to participate ac-tively in designing and developing the products. Thatprocess of co-creation will help businesses finally tounderstand how innovation happens; right from thesource of those who utilise their products.

Let’s turn to knowledge management (KM). For agood number of years companies like Toyota and BPhave excelled for their impressive KM programs, whichwere considered top-notch by the industry and whichhave received various awards. Fast forward to . It

now looks like those KM programs haven’t been thatsuccessful in stopping the corporations from gettinginto trouble. Steve, where do you think they havegone wrong with their KM programs? How do you en-vision radical management will help them to get backon track, keeping a strong focus on KM if possible?Can they get their act together once more in the KMfield?

Stephen Denning: There are several different thingsgoing on here.

One is that traditional management is essentially atop-down authority-based way of operating. KM isessentially a horizontal competence-based way of

operating. When we were introducing KM some years ago, we all tended to assume that it would bepossible to operate oases of KM within a culture oftraditional management. It turned that the traditionalmanagement culture tended to kill the oases of KMand turn them into traditional management units. Thishappened in all the famous programs in various ways,including IBM, Ernst & Young, McKinsey and so on.What we didn’t realize back then was that for KM toflourish on a sustained basis, you had to change theculture of the whole organization. That’s what radical

management is all about.

Toyota and BP are very different cases.

Toyota was very different from traditional manage-ment culture and in fact was an a forerunner of radicalmanagement. Work was team-based and collabora-tive. Knowledge was shared horizontally. The focuswas on providing more value to the customer sooner,rather than growing the company. NeverthelessToyota grew exponentially as a result, not as the goal.

In the early s, a change came over the top ma-nagement and they started to focus on growing thecompany as the goal. This started to infect the colla-borative knowledge-based culture. The problems withsticky accelerator pedals and wandering floor mats aresymptoms of this straying from the Toyota way. Mytake is that the Toyota has recognized the problem,changed the management and is getting back to theauthentic Toyota culture. In Toyota’s case, it is a mat-ter of getting back to its roots. There is a lot of noiseabout recalls but historically Toyota has had fewer re-

calls than other companies. It’s quality record is stillamong the best.

BP is an example of the opposite. BP was always a tradi-tional top-down command culture. KM was an effortto graft KM onto that culture. IT was a fine effort bythe KM team but in the end, the management gavepriority to financial results and growth over values andknowledge. So it wasn’t much of a surprise that whenBP merged with Amoco, the KM unit was killed. Nor



we_special_ /



we_special_ /

was it much of a surprise to see the rash of accidentsculminating in the Gulf oil spill. BP has one of theworst quality records in the oil business.

Toyota is a case of a knowledge based culture that ex-perienced a brief deviation and is getting back on

track. BP is a case of a culture that is antipathetic toknowledge and has to begin again.

Luis Suarez: How do you envision that new radicalleadership will revamp the st century KM programs?Will they have learned from past “mistakes” and doKM properly this time? The reason why I am addingthis is because if we look at the original KM and howit was envisioned and how Enterprise . was first puttogether, there are hardly any differences. In a waythey seem to be walking similar paths and somehow

today’s leadership doesn’t seem to have learned frompast “mistakes”. So does KM need to reinvent itself toprovide the next generation of Enterprise . colla-boration and knowledge sharing strategies? Is thatsomething that new radical leaders will need to pro-voke to move into the so-called knowledge economy?How much does it take KM to adapt to this new kindof leadership? To me, it looks like we are still repeatingthe same mistakes we did back then! How do we stopit?

It’s undeniable that social computing has a strong in-fluence on how radical management is perceivedtoday in the corporate world. We’ve plenty of exam-ples where we can see the impact that social mediahas been having in nurturing a new kind of leader-ship. However, Steve, I was wondering if you couldcomment on whether you feel that radical manage-ment would have taken place without social compu-ting. If so, what shape or form would it have takenaltogether? Could we still be talking about a new kindof leadership coming along with radical manage-

ment?

Stephen Denning: By social computing, I take it thatyou mean social media, such as Facebook, Twitter andYouTube.

I think it’s an overstatement to say that radical ma-nagement “has taken place”. Management is beingreinvented and and a number of organizations haveadopted the principles and practices that I have called

radical management. What I would say is that radicalmanagement is emerging as a better way to run an or-ganization – better for the organization, better for thecustomers and stakeholders and better for the mana-gers and people doing the work. There is still quite abit of work to be done in converting the Fortune ,

governments, health and education systems to thisway of thinking.

The driving force behind the push towards radical ma-nagement is not social media. The driving force is thattraditional management doesn’t work. The rate of re-turn on assets is a quarter of what it was in . Thelife expectancy of a firm in the Fortune is downfrom around years to less than years and decli-ning fast. Only one in five workers is fully engaged inhis or her work. This is a record of failure. As a result,

another way has emerged.

Social media is a facilitator of the change, by exposingthe incapacity of traditional management to cope withsocial media. But by itself, social media is not thedriver.

Will radical management work any better than tra-ditional management? Stuart Slatter et al in LeadingCorporate Turnaround said “Characteristics of theappropriate remedy are that it must

• address the fundamental problems;• tackle the underlying causes (rather than the

symptoms) and• be broad and deep enough in scope to resolve

all the key issues.”

I believe that radical management meets these criteria.

It will depend however on how it is implemented. If itis implemented by managers with a top-down thing-

oriented mindset, it won’t work, It’s not just a set oftools and practices. This is a fundamental shift in theway people think and act in the workplace. Whenpeople make that shift, it works. It has to start with achange of heart.

Luis Suarez: I find it intriguing how you see socialmedia as a facilitator for radical management. I thinkit’s more than a facilitator; it’s more an enhancement,and augmentation, of what radical management and



we_special_ /

that new kind of leadership you mentioned sould belike. I am sure that without the role of social media, ra-dical management would probably take decades moreto sink in. Social media is accelerating this sense of fai-lure big time. Specially when the knowledge workersget together, talk amongst themselves, rally around,

network and collaborate with one another they show-case how traditional management and business areboth broken and how a new change is needed. If any-thing, social media has transformed traditional mana-gers into “leaders as servants”. I think this is one ofthe main paradigm shifts in today’s leadership.

I do agree with you that radical management willcome about eventually. However, I still think that so-cial media has played a key role in helping define thenext generation of leaders. Without social media I be-

lieve we would probably not be talking about radicalmanagement today. Recent global events can proba-bly vouch for that together with the way that socialmedia has changed traditional business oprations. Ijust can’t conceive of a world of radical managementwithout the high level impact social media had overthe last to years and counting ...

Stephen Denning: Social media have played a big rolein the transitions under way in the political sphere inTunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere. I have been among

those who have disagreed with Malcolm Gladwellwho predicted otherwise.

But when it comes to corporate change, we are notlooking, so far, at a social revolution like that, but atsomething led by managers, who for the most parthave not been connecting by social media. So at best,social media in this area has been a minor factor todate in the changes under way in big organizations.

It would be romantic to think of social media as the

irritating grain of sand that caused the beautiful pearlof radical management to grow within the oyster ofmanagement, but it’s not obvious that this romanticpicture fits the facts.

I believe the truth is more mundane. Traditional ma-nagement stopped working. Managers had to findsomething that did work. Hence radical managementbegan to blossom.



we_special_ /



we_special_ /

cases



we_special_ /

The Web is the most important and valuable human artifact ever created. And, it is not owned by any single group, government, company, or person. It is not patented, no one is

By Itay Talgam

An orchestra conductor faces the ultimate leadership challenge: creating perfect harmonyand progress without saying a word. How does this work? Itay Talgam finds metaphors for organizational behavior – and models for inspired leadership – within the workings of thesymphony orchestra.

# orchestra conductor, organizational behavior, symphony orchestra,conductor of people in business, maestro, orpheus, gravity is no more,nuance, Bernstein, Kleiber, Orchestra, performance, von Karajan,Strauss, interpretation, Muti, La Scala, musical director,principal conductor

> related articles:Gunter Dueck (p. ), Ken Robinson (p. )

What A Little Nuance Can Do!

case study_



we_special_ /

y Talgam

is an Israeli conductor and business consultant. He studied at the Rubincademy and gratuated in philosophy from the Hebrew University of rusalem. Starting out as a pianist, he switched to conducting after comple-

ng his military service. He attended a summer course given byonard Bernstein in Fontainebleau, France. After a ten year conducting reer in his native Israel, Itay Talgam has now reinvented himself as anductor of people in business.

Fotocredit: Frank Hamm



we_special_ /

When gravity is no more!An essay

Imagine a Dixie band in full swing, simultaneouslyimprovising in a chaotic yet clearly organized, syner-getic, happy cooperation. Why can’t every musical

performance be like that?

Why can’t all work be like that?Why isn’t life always like that?Well, the answer, to my mind at least, is that it should be.Yet it very frequently isn’t ...

The reason for this is that balance between the all-es-sential structure – achieved in music by prior agree-ment on form, style, keys etc. – and the no lessessential element of indeterminate, free space for

things to happen in ways unanticipated – that balanceis not easy to achieve. Some musical groups tend to beone sided in their behavior. If you play ‘free jazz’ youmake a point of disregarding structure. If you play ina ‘marching band’ you look to minimize all uncertain-ties. This is the same issue that most organizationsstruggle with, using a variety of frequently changingmixes of order and disorder.

Symphony orchestras are unique among musicalensembles worldwide in their size (up to about

players), the inner diversity of instruments and pro-fessions, and the level of complexity of the music theyperform (this is not to suggest that symphonic musicis in any way necessarily ‘better’ than other kinds ofmusic). So it’s hardly surprising that the ‘Maestro’ –the great conductor and sometimes dictator – hasstood for many years at the helm of this body, clai-ming, and universally regarded as having, completecontrol over the exact execution of what is entirely his(but never her) artistic vision.

Surprisingly, this model of leadership still exists, andis robbing many young musicians of the joy of play-ing in orchestras, and sometimes even of their verylove of music. Very few orchestras (the ‘Orpheus’chamber orchestra of New York is one famous exam-ple) chose to work without conductors at all – fillingthe void in leadership with complex, often time-con-suming procedures of inner negotiations and consen-sus-building. The players of these orchestras seemhappy, creative, and often exhausted. Even so, players

readily admit that a great conductor – or a great so-loist performing with them – can bring greater valueto the performance.

What would that something be?

I think it has to do with the word ‘great’ having a newmeaning – quite different to the greatness of leadersof the past.

A great contemporary conductor will balance struc-ture and freedom through creating controlled pro-cesses, shared with the skilled musician-playersthrough an understanding of the underpinning logic.He or she actively create spaces for other musician-players to fill, and shares the emerging experiencesboth inwardly – with the musicians involved – and

with his or her other partners in the orchestra, butalso with the audience. The great conductor will con-stantly identify and use gaps, or even create gaps inthe process of rehearsing, studying and performing.Gaps in meaning, interpretation, and gaps in processand control are all opportunities for creative thinkingand sharing. The great conductor will keep her vir-tuoso players at the peak level of individual creativitythrough constant challenge and open spaces, lettingthem be engaged in all sorts of interactions, whileconstantly creating a strong center of gravitation. If

he or she is truly lucky, that gravitational force willbe love: the love of music, the love of making musictogether – I call it: When gravity is no more!

Just like in the Dixie bands.

>



we_special_ /

uances

An orchestra ... gives the conductor an opportunity to create an organized sound with one gesture. Everything is aboutance, and Talgam shows what nuance can do,” says Daniel von Gool, a writer at ARGnet.

Nuances: Lennie BernsteinIt’s all about “meaning”.Bernstein explains andshares experiences to liftthe young orchestra up tohis ideas/his meaning.He doesn’t tell them whatto do … but he still getseverything he wants. WEall can do it! And WE’ll

do it and achieve ittogether! Minimum effort,maximum results!

Nuances: Carlos KleiberKleiber is a great perfor-mer and he always seemsto have great fun! He com-

bines top down with givingspace to the soloist andinviting him to perform.He completely trusts hisorchestra while he isactually NOT conductingduring the most compli-cated passages of theperformance.

All pictures are stills from YouTube videos



Nuances: Richard StraussMay God rest his soul!It is all said and written!Just do it! No interpretation!

we_special_ /

Nuances: Herbert von KarajanPlayer: “Maestro, please let me know when to start playing!”

Karajan: “Start, when you can’t stand it no more!”Karajan is totally into self monitoring and self regulation. He gives the musiciansmaximum space, he forces them in a soft way to collaborate, he enables theorchestra to unfold. Players have to watch each other, they have to listen to eachother – otherwise the orchestra would collapse.Karajan eyes are closed while conducting – there are only weak ties betweenMaestro and orchestra.

Nuances: Riccardo MutiThe exact replication of traditional top down manage-ment – not an inch of space or chance of interpretationgiven to members of the orchestra. The orchestra is for-ced into following his dictatorial commands.Even though Muti’s work is highly respected, La Scala inMilan forced him to step down after years as musicaldirector and principal conductor.The reason: No chance that the musicians canpersonally develop under his iron rule.



we_special_ /



we_special_ /

ank Roebers

is a lawyer. Frank Roebers has been CEO of Synaxon AG, Europe’sggest IT franchise, since 1999. His three driving passions are B2C businessth the PC-SPEZIALIST brand; strategic and organizational development his company; and Six Sigma. Drawing his inspiration from the Openurce movement, Frank Roebers played a leading role in transforming

ynaxon into an enterprise 2.0 company.



we_special_ /

Gudrun Porath:How did you get the idea of completely refocusing your company on a wiki as your intranet platform withthe switchover to a transparent corporate culture that sucha move involves?

Frank Roebers: Synaxon’s old organizational structurewas straining at its limits. It was something we couldsimply no longer afford to keep because we’d noticedthat the old ways we had of doing things in terms ofmanagement and organization were no longer fit forpurpose. Then in I heard a talk by Jimmy Waleson Wikipedia which gave me an understanding ofhow free projects can work. And I tried it out for my-self by contributing to Wikipedia and Ubuntu. Thesefree projects can release so much sheer creativity be-cause they leave people free to do their own thing in

an atmosphere of complete transparency. And thisprincipled philosophical approach used by free pro-jects was exactly what we wanted to bring to our com-pany along with the instrumental side of Web . .

Gudrun Porath:How does all of this pan out in practical terms on the dailyworking lives of your employees?

Frank Roebers: The wiki is the intranet platformthrough which all our work goes. All our completed

and on-going projects are mapped in it. All our em-ployees work with it and can see exactly – to give anexample – whether their colleague is sticking to herresource agreements, where they stand in the projectand when something is supposed to happen. They canalso change the rules like guidelines for travel expen-ses without having to consult with their bosses be-forehand. All our meetings, even meetings dealingwith company strategy, are prepared and documen-ted on the wiki. This means that everybody can parti-cipate which generates an unbelievably high level of

transparency. What our employees appreciate aboutit is that at long last their input has become visible;they think it’s good that everyone can now see they’reworking day and night for the company. They used todo this beforehand as well – only then it went complet-ely unnoticed. And by the way, it can also be shownmathematically that our model based on a corporateculture of trust and transparency really does work. I’mthinking of the prisoner’s dilemma and tit for tat. Inthe advanced version of the prisoner’s dilemma a

large number of players are pitted against one an-other over several rounds. The tit for tat strategy meansthat I always begin by cooperating and my stance isreflected in my opponent’s behavior. If my opponentstays cooperative, I stay cooperative. If he doesn’t co-operate, I won’t cooperate until such times as he starts

to cooperate once more. So the situation is compara-ble to that existing between management and work-force in a company.

Gudrun Porath:And is this strategy always successful?

Frank Roebers: Tit for tat is considered as the most ro-bust and successful strategy. Tit for tat only looses outwhen over percent of the other participants start outon a non-cooperative footing. Or to put it another

way: when I’m dealing with a self-contained organi-zational unit of the type exemplified by a company, allI really have to do is make certain that ten percentstart out on a cooperative basis and then a stable ma-thematical state will very soon set in which meanscooperation, but which also means above all else thatthings won’t fall apart if some individual misuses thesystem. In other words, if someone abuses its confi-dence, the system still remains stable. That’s the ex-perience we have made.

Gudrun Porath:How did you go about introducing this principle of management and corporate culture based on transparencyand trust into your company?

Frank Roebers: We turned the model on its head andsaid that we’re starting out with a culture of mistrustin which everything has to be approved and we’llswap it for a culture of trust and cooperative strate-gies. Well, we were lucky enough to have at least fans in the company who worked with us from the

very beginning – way above that percent threshold.We weren’t so sure about all the others. Yet withinonly two weeks the cooperative system achieved sucha level of stability that there was no need to make anyfurther interventions. This means that no one in ourcompany needs to pay any further attention to main-taining the wiki principles. It all works perfectly, itworks by itself and it’s stable.



we_special_ /

Gudrun Porath:Well, with so much transparency around, you might alsoexpect flat hierarchies. Yet that isn’t the case with Synaxon.What role if now left for management and for you yourself?

Frank Roebers: Our management structure is relati-

vely complex. We have structure, project and process,the traditional three organizational levels. And paral-lel to this a meritocracy emerged through the wiki.This is only controllable because the managementworkload became significantly lighter once we aban-doned the principle of a “general approval require-ment”. Management now just have the right of vetoand this creates management-side resources.

My understanding of leadership is that first and fore-most it’s me who is responsible for the intractable

questions. I am the representative of the owners. Atthe end of the day somebody’s got to take responsi-bility. All the rest can be done by software or some-body else. And there’s no one in our company whodoesn’t share this point of view. Some people wouldgo crazy working for us, because when you see ourmanagement in action you also see the authority theyyield. They’re not exactly cuddly teddy bears! But onthe other side we certainly offer much greater scopefor creative freedom than most other companies do. Ithink we simply tend more to let the power of reason

take its course.

Gudrun Porath:What about transparency when it comes to management level meetings and discussions? Is the principle just asrigorously applied here to include involvement of companyemployees?

Frank Roebers: All our meetings, even meetings onstrategy, are prepared, conducted and documented onwiki. Management puts its proposed themes in the

public spotlight. Employees can read these proposalson the wiki and leave their comments. During themeeting someone will take the minutes in real-time.The meeting is announced on Yammer (the in-houseTwitter service) – “Meeting starting soon in confe-rence room X”, with a wiki document link so thatanyone who’s interested can follow the minutes onthe fly and see how decisions are taken. These mee-tings normally take three hours. And in these threehours we can zip through an agenda that other com-

panies couldn’t manage in a whole day. We can dothis because all the spadework is done live on the wikiand many topics have been settled in advance aspeople make their positions on them known. In themeeting itself people can use instant messaging tomake their voices heard and bring in their views like

suggesting things they’d like to see changed.

Gudrun Porath:Has this transparent management culture brought other advantages to your company?

Frank Roebers: Since we started to produce a relati-vely large amount of collaborative writing in the com-pany, and since we made synaxon.de highly transpa-rent, we’ve seen a tremendous improvement in thequality of our applicants. Up to we were a per-

fectly ordinary trading company and we never cameout tops in the talent recruitment wars. But since webecame transparent, we’ve been able to recruit lea-ding scientists in fields like artificial intelligence andpattern recognition. And they tell us that what wehave is exactly what they’ve always been looking for.

years ago we wouldn’t have had a hope of attrac-ting them.When we introduced the wiki in , we had an ave-rage fluctuation in staff of % per year. A completedisaster. Now we’re down to %. That’s really not

enough for the dynamics, but it’s not something we’reactively seeking to change.



we_special_ /



we_special_ /

Interview with Hermann Demmel

“Human resources management is brand management for the inside”, says Hermann Demmel.WE couldn’t agree more! SportScheck is a great case study that shows how the WE inside acompany is congruent with the “WE” outside the company.

# SportScheck, Otto Group, Wir machen Sport, we make and play sport,brand, HR, product, customer-side, USP, trading environment, sports,sports outlets, consumer behaviors, surprise, convince, translate,turnaround, enterprise . , culture, change

> related articles:Don Tapscott (p. ), Gunter Dueck (p. ), Ken Robinson (p. ),J.P. Rangaswami (p. ), Lee Byrant (p. )

When Brand AndCorporate Values Meet!

case study_



we_special_ /

ermann Demmelis divisional director for Human Resources Development and Corporate

ulture Development at SportScheck GmbH. SportScheck is an affiliate of e Otto Group.



we_special_ /

we_magazine:How does leadership change with Enterprise 2.0?

Hermann Demmel: What you see on Web . – whet-her you look at Facebook or any number of other plat-forms – is an uncontrolled proliferation of autonomy.

In other words, of self-proclaimed groups who maketheir own rules and who protest about things and indoing so manage to create resonance. We all know afew examples of this from the Net that show us howresonance can be built and large numbers of peoplebe brought on the move. Of course autonomy is alsoimportant in company terms too: employees want tohave some kind of hand in shaping things. They don’tnecessarily want to play a part in the co-determina-tion process, but employees too need to feel the ten-sion between hierarchy and heterarchy.

we_magazine:When do they need heterarcy and when do they need hierarchy?

Hermann Demmel: They need a heterarchy when theywant to put lots of things on a community footing. Forinstance, they need communitizing processes whenthey want to make customers aware of a brand and abrand message. In we put our brand statementon sport on a community footing. In a heterarchical

process we discussed this issue in a way that wasalmost grassroots democracy – I really shouldn’t besaying this – but yes, almost grassroots democracy.

we_magazine:

What do you mean by “communitize”?

Hermann Demmel: Communitize means two thingsto me. Employees shouldn’t just be on the same in-formation standpoint, they should also be capable ofcontributing some of their own individual identity. So

when they formulate a brand message, as we did withour claim “Wir machen Sport” (“We make sport andplay sport”), that’s a clear statement. So it’s extremelyimportant that employees bring in a piece of theirown identity so that this “Wir machen Sport” claim re-ally can become reality. And you also have to ensurethat there are opportunities to make employees awareof how they can contribute their identity. Web . isone excellent way of translating such an opportunity.

we_magazine:Why is this communitization so important?Who’s taking the lead here?

Hermann Demmel: It is important because buildingan identity means first making the charisma of a brand

come through inside the company. If the charisma ofa brand resonates within the company, it’s bound toshine on the outside too. Otherwise the claim is justan empty marketing attitude. Of course, as so oftenis the case, you need role models. Starting with com-pany management and not forgetting employee re-presentation, you have to shape identity. Role modelstake a clear leading role in this. And anybody can bea role model.

we_magazine:

You often use a phrase that I haven’t heard for these past 25 years: “Human resources management is brand manage-ment for the inside.”

Hermann Demmel: Human resources managementshould have its focus securely fixed on the company’sbrand identity. When the brand message really doesserve to create identity among company employees,the charisma of the brand will be clearly visible on theoutside too. This calls for human resources develop-ment. You have to find out what’s important for your

employees, what they identify themselves with. Keep-ing these values in constant harmony with the brandis a daunting challenge. But perhaps we’re particularlylucky with our chosen theme of sport. Sport is a themethat brims with emotion so we have this incrediblywonderful playing field where we can kick this themearound with our employees.

we_magazine:How far then does the consumer on the outside determinehow employees are “led” on the inside?

Hermann Demmel: Consumers aren’t primarily inter-ested in what management does. Of course they donotice that employees identify closely with the pro-duct, the brand, and the job they do. Customer-sideservices are an excellent opportunity to show authen-ticity. We need to concentrate on this but it’s alwayshard work.



we_special_ /

we_magazine:When you talk about brand culture and corporate culture,which concepts do you have at the back of your mind?

Hermann Demmel: In the best case scenario we talkabout employees as brand ambassadors. As brand am-

bassadors they largely identify with the brand’s coremessage and reflect it too in all its myriad facets. Inprinciple that’s the best advertising you can possiblyhave. And it’s particularly important when you’re de-pendent on high customer frequency and face-to facedealings. We have people working in our retailoutlets. Giving customers a tangible feeling for thisis a USP that’s beyond price. At the same time we’reexposed to the full range of social currents and eco-nomic imperatives. And our own trading environmentis particularly finely meshed which makes it difficult

to reap profit and invest. This is why it’s vital that wesucceed in ensuring that employees find their ownidentities reflected in the brand identity and that theycan transport this to the outside.

we_magazine:How does your company do this?

Hermann Demmel: You can do this easily if your com-pany is in a pioneering phase. In this phase high iden-tification with the product brand goes hand in hand

with what you’re doing. This is mainly where it’s crea-ted and is directly tangible. But in a company that’sbeen on the market for over years and has scaledall the heights and depths, such identification is by nomeans self-evident. And this brings us nicely to theissue of corporate culture. The truly exciting thingabout it is that nobody can probably succeed in put-ting a corporate culture into precise words. The sim-plest sentence is “That’s just the way we are”. Or if youcame into our headquarters and took a look around –“Yes, that’s SportScheck for you!” Or if you met one

of our managers and said afterwards “Yes, exactly, hemust be one of the SportScheck crew.”

we_magazine:How do you arrive at such statements?

Hermann Demmel: It’s a cultural asset which we nur-ture with our own company processes. We call themour corporate culture cogwheels – resonance points orcrystallization points at which what we’ve achieved in

terms of corporate culture becomes visible. Leadershipis a good example. Leadership is a primary elementwhich has great influence on a company’s culture. Ifyou don’t clearly define leadership but leave it all tochance, you’ll be faced with a proliferation of styles ofleadership which give rise to an unpredictable (non-

quantifiable) momentum within corporate culture.This is when your employees start to lose their graspof things because on the one hand they’re under ma-nagement which acts according to one style of lead-ership, yet in another area they are confronted with acompletely different leadership style. This is why it’s soessential to give it proper definition. Only definition isa long drawn-out process. You can’t simply write downfive principles of management, you have to commu-nitize them. This means you have to initiate identitybuilding measures. The executive mission statement

must also reflect who we are, where we want to goand what we need to get us there. It should never bea reflection of a perfectly quantifiable world.

we_magazine:What are the other cogwheels in corporate culture?

Hermann Demmel: The other main themes are inno-vation, human resources development and the themeof values. Any discussion of values of course brings inthemes like habits and customs, regulation and the

theme of corporate behavior. Other companies too en-gage with these themes. And to them I would say –don’t get hung up on the principles of corporate be-havior! Because these just describe codes of conduct.But codes of conduct say nothing about how we actu-ally are. You have to conduct yourself within a particu-lar context but what about your attitude, your mindset?

we_magazine:How do you harmonize your inside perspective, your corporateculture and the values of your employees with the brand image

on the outside, what customers think SportScheck is all about?

Hermann Demmel: That is a major challenge. Wor-king together with Prof. Kruse we hit on a fascinatingprocess. In we began to work on our brand image.We wanted to find out what customers thought of ourbrand. What kind of expectations they had in termsof sport and sports outlets? Customer behavior is cer-tainly determined by a wide range of disparate factors.But at the end of the day it’s the customer’s value sy-



we_special_ /

stem that motivates consumer behavior. So for us itwas very exciting to see how customers had changed,and how their value systems had changed on the glo-bal scale as well.

We used a customer survey to find out what the value

system of our customer looks like. And we took thissurvey along with our employees – about ofthem, a good representative sample of our company’svarious divisions – into a workshop where we satdown together and discussed the results. “Well, well,so that’s what customers think. That’s what concernsthem. That’s what’s important for them. So what doesall this really mean now for us?”

With Prof. Kruse’s workshop methodology “next mode-rator” we communitized results with employees:

“As part of the company, what do you think all this hasto do with you personally? What consequences do youdraw from it all? What does it mean to you as someoneinvolved in the buying department when customershave these kinds of expectations about you?”

Out of our discussions on product line and humanresources development and on system-related issueswe then evolved and defined our own guidelines – ourprinciples of leadership. Our actions had to be gearedto our goals. If we have a certain idea of our customers

and if we match our services to suit our customers, wemust all be able to do this on the basis of a shared com-mon understanding. To nurture such a common under-standing, we defined our guidelines. We identified threekey concepts “surprise”; “convince” and “translate”.

These concepts show just what this means for us as acompany. “How do we surprise our customers? Howdo we pack conviction? How do we translate market-related issues for the customer in a way that reflectsour own expertise?” In the next stage, on the other

hand, what we were aiming for was to put these keyconcepts on a community footing. We didn’t producesome glossy brochure to showcase and trumpet them.We sat down and thought about how we could enterinto interaction with our own employees.

Together with the marketing department, we evolveda communication strategy that could reach each andevery one of our employees. We developed a com-munication kit, a module that would enable us to in-

teract with all our employees. We held talks with ouremployees and showed them your video with Prof.Kruse to start the dialog rolling. They were asked tomake videos about what they had heard and seen andto give us feedback on what they personally felt aboutour new market positioning. And then we made a film

which included excerpts from all their contributions.We made a commentary on the film and gave our em-ployees yet more feedback. This marked the begin-ning of a new positioning which at the end of the daymarked a complete turnaround for the company.

we_magazine:How does Enterprise 2.0 help you to harmonize brand culture with corporate culture?

Hermann Demmel: Enterprise . helps me create

transparency, helps me to network and bring my com-munication skills really up to speed. I am really con-vinced that it will bring about a quantum leap inorganization.

we_magazine:Under what conditions?

Hermann Demmel: To really create value by workingwith Enterprise . , what you need is a basic dynamicin corporate culture, in other words you need the pos-

sibility of letting autonomous processes unfold. Youneed an understanding of the differences betweenhierarchy and heterarchy, that’s a fundamental prere-quisite. And you need a totally clear vision and a rea-diness to seize opportunity.

Actually, nowadays Enterprise . is no longer a revela-tion for me in the sense of something special; it justhelps us to do what we’re already doing. Enterprise .enables us to perform better, quicker and more effi-ciently.

we_magazine:And how high do you see the risk that with such an under-standing of leadership where every employee is a brand ambassador something could go wrong ?

Hermann Demmel: It’s a risk that we must dare totake on board and learn from. We can’t stop the Web– so let’s work with it.



we_special_ /



A conversation between Klaus Doppler and Andreas Nau

Klaus Doppler and Andreas Nau first met at the Business Summer School run by theBertelsmann Stiftung. Since 2006, the Business Summer School has given advanced trai-

ning to over 250 new leaders, providing them with an opportunity to discuss leadershipstyle and corporate culture as decisive success factors in times of increasingly stringent challenges and ever more complex structures. Its combination of new theoretical insightsand robust real-world-oriented discussions for participants both among themselves and with well-known business leaders makes the Business Summer School a unique learning environment.In all its courses, the Business Summer School considers that a values-based corporate cultureand the spirit of partnership is a vital, integral part of the professional development of next generation leaders.The school’s program offers all participants the opportunity to broaden networks, takeadvantage of a cooperative learning environment to gain valuable new insights for their

work, and to step back from their workaday concerns to gain “a view of the bigger picture”.

# Business summer school, bertelsmann stiftung, real-world-orienteddiscussions, theoretical insights, learning environment, value-basedcorporate culture, spirit of partnership, broaden networks, cooperativelearning, bigger picture, change, change process, micronexus, TUI,holiday provider, online travel providers, consumer behaviors, brandimage, change, social media, Mubarak, Nasser, Facebooked, losingcontrol, synaxon

> related articles:Martin Spilker (p. ), Lee Byrant (p. ), Kruse / Sattelbeger (p. )

we_special_ /

Facebooked?case study_



we_special_ /

aus Doppleris a trained psychologist and qualified theologian who works across ariety of business sectors as a freelance management coach and organizatio-l consultant specialized in the management of critical change processes.e is also the author of numerous publications on leadership and change ma-gement and advises executives in major corporations on change manage-ent. In his conversation with Andreas Nau, Klaus Doppler is particularlyterested in the role that Web 2.0 with its social media tools can play in theange process of the TUI travel group.

ndreas Nau

is CEO of MicronNexus GmbH, a subsidiary of the leading travel groupUI. For Andreas Nau online sales and social media are two of the keyues. MicronNexus provides online-platforms for car rentals across the

orld which makes it very much the new kid on the block among the TUI oup of companies. Yet the Group itself – renowned for its traditional salepackage holidays through travel agencies – is facing increasing competition

om online travel providers and radical changes in consumer behavior, and coming under increasing pressure to change both its brand image and its

erarchical management structures.



we_special_ /

Klaus Doppler: I have a particular take on leadershipon which I base my services: I only have to be led if I’mblind, lame or dead drunk, otherwise I’d rather ma-nage by myself. In other words, leadership alwaysimplies an incapacity on the part of those being led. Ifyou reject this view, you must first have a pretty clear

idea of what the positive benefits of your own style ofleadership are. This is why I think that one of thegreatest gifts someone who leads others must haveis the ability to be a really good listener and to take acritical view of themselves! So when you look aroundand see how the management in your own companyare acting, how would you rate their ability to standback and take a critical view?

Andreas Nau: In our company there are a great manypeople who’ve been in the same position for years and

years. And my gut feeling is that these are the veryones who are least open to change.

Klaus Doppler: So how do you tackle them whenyou want to change something? Let’s suppose you’redealing with someone at the very top. What can youdo in your company in that case?

Andreas Nau: Basically there are two methods. Eitheryou say – it’s not worth my while pushing this issuethrough so I’ll leave it. Because I’ve realized that his

agenda – which prevents him from listening to me –has such a heavy footprint that I’ll never change it.There are some issues where this really is the case. Or,on the other hand, you say – well, I think I can get thecompany to take this issue on board, and in that casewhat you do is look for allies and try to build up a formof “subculture” for promoting ideas that are worth de-veloping.

Klaus Doppler: How widespread is this subculture inyour company?

Andreas Nau: To some extent it’s got to do with theparticular issue involved. Let’s take social media as acase in point. We’ve got a company in England work-ing in the high-priced specialist segment and veryearly on they built up a Facebook presence on theirweb site. And that now means that over percent ofguests who book on the site start to dialog with otherguests on the order of “What can I do in Patagonia?Which bars should I go to, which restaurants?” Now

the people in the company who take this developmentseriously can come together and consider as a groupwhat can be done in this particular market segment.Earlier on it was completely unheard of that anyonewould ask questions like “How important are socialmedia to us as a company in the travel business? Do

they trigger serious change?” Sadly, at the momentwe’re still not managing to get such questions airedat the top levels in the group. But a great deal stilldepends on the particular structure we have, made upof a great number of single companies which obvio-usly all pursue their own individual agendas.

Klaus Doppler: Is there also a side to social networkingwhere middle level management and company em-ployees dialog and create their own networks? Is thisopenly allowed or is it more covert?

Andreas Nau: Let me kick off by saying that it was per-haps just one year ago that in some of our companieswe had to get permission from our IT departmentsand the works council before we could even start tothink of using Facebook and Twitter. Our works coun-cil hadn’t the foggiest idea what they were! OK, thatcan be quickly explained and they did give permissionand even found it was quite a good idea. But it doesgo to show just where the priorities lie. So my answeris a clear no: we’ve got nothing approaching that in

the main holding but you certainly can find it in someof the subsidiaries.

Klaus Doppler: Why’s that? I recently read an articleabout the revolution in Egypt which had an Egyptianjoke: Mubarak goes to meet his maker and in the nextworld meets Nasser and Sadat who ask him how hedied – was he shot or beheaded? And Mubarak ans-wers – I was Facebooked! You get my point: Facebookand the other platforms are completely devoid of hier-archy whereas in company communications there are

very highly structured forms of hierarchy where youhave to think twice about what you’re going to sendout and in what form you send it. But in social net-works we’re all on the hierarchical level and we cansimply communicate with everybody. Someone putsup a posting and I add a “I like”. And so does the nextperson and suddenly you have a hundred people wholiked it. My basic idea is that there are Mubaraks inGerman companies too. The question is whether youcan, or whether you’re allowed, to do something



we_special_ /

about them via social networks or in-house platforms.Does this pose a threat to the “order” of German com-panies?

Andreas Nau: Obviously companies have a certain de-gree of order and whoever holds the reins of power is

frightened – terrified as I’ve come to think – about lo-sing them. As a fellow employee, what’s important isto understand the reasons that motivate them andthen to decide whether you’ve got a chance of influ-encing them. I don’t even think that this was the rea-son why they weren’t willing to allow Facebook insidethe company ...

Klaus Doppler: But they would censor it!

Andreas Nau: ... but not so because many managers

still haven’t even looked into Facebook. With thebenefit of hindsight I think that they’d heard of it buthadn’t given any thought to just how important it isfor us.

Klaus Doppler: Is that a stroke of good luck or a mis-fortune?

Andreas Nau: Perhaps a bit of good luck! Because thewhole of company management hasn’t really dealtwith the issue in any depth, this means that we’re left

a great deal of freedom. They tell us to go away anddo something. And then people go and dream upreally fantastic things in this field. Even establishedcompanies like TUI Deutschland come up with reallybrilliant ideas about how Facebook can be used.

Klaus Doppler: And do you also use it for communi-cating with company staff?

Andreas Nau: Not yet, but I wouldn’t mind doing so.The question that needs to be asked is why we still

haven’t done so. Probably because there are so manyother priorities on our agendas, but basically I believethat the fear of losing control isn’t as pronouncedon our side as it is in other major parts of the groupwhere everything is really heavily structured in a hier-archy.

Klaus Doppler: What you’ve just touched on is veryimportant for me – this fear of losing control. I’d pro-bably have it too if I were a manager. I’d want to keepa very firm grasp on things. Just imagine if I weredoing an online survey and it started to run againstmy expectations so I stopped it and then people came

to me and told me I was crazy and couldn’t do thatand the survey was up and running again!

Andreas Nau: Once we’ve settled down and got usedto it, all these fears and anxieties will vanish. Like “Oh,they can see my face! Oh, three people can’t bad-mouth a hotel that brings us at TUI , guests peryear; three people are going to blast a huge hole inour income!” In my opinion all this is going to levelout. We can see this happening now: in the beginningthe branch was jittery about companies putting up

rating portals in the Internet. But nowadays theseportals are balancing out. It’s now the case that hotelowners and even travel organizers can post a rejoin-der and in any case other guests post their own cor-rective comments to a bad review. I believe that thedanger will regulate itself.

Klaus Doppler: But doesn’t that mean that when Iopen up an online rating for employees in my owncompany and say that in future management, colla-boration and communication will all be rated by these

instruments – doesn’t that mean that I don’t haveto fear that every comment placed will be negative?Doesn’t that mean – unless I’m a real old bastard! –that things are going to balance out?

Andreas Nau: Absolutely. Unless you’re a total controlfreak and that species is certainly not extinct. Other-wise I think that these instruments give people incen-tives to take responsibility for what they say. If leadersare willing to listen to criticism, I think that this abilitysignificantly enhances their position. People accept

that you can make mistakes and are ready to listen …because you’re always stronger as part of a groupthan you are by yourself. Facebook is the perfect toolto get such a process rolling.

Klaus Doppler: By the way, if you allow in-house plat-forms, wikis or social networks in your company, wouldyou write under your real name or an alias?



we_special_ /

Andreas Nau: Both. I’d naturally hope that manypeople would write under their real names becausethen you’d probably have a direct opportunity to ans-wer them and it would also show that you have a cor-porate culture where people don’t need to be afraid ofspeaking their minds. But obviously there are also a

few things that you can be more open about if you’rewriting under an alias.

Klaus Doppler: As we know, Mubarak was toppledby Facebook. What if you were to say “We’re goingto open a wiki about the role of management in ourcompany.” Would the works council agree or would itsay – sorry, can’t be done? Or would it say that itcouldn’t sanction such a move because it would be aviolation of personal rights?

Andreas Nau: That depends on the particular workscouncil and how receptive they are to trying out newideas. But actually it would help to develop commu-nication between management and staff and even –why not? – with the customers.

Klaus Doppler: Do you really need to ask the workscouncil in the first place?

Andreas Nau: I think the online platform’s a brilliantidea. I’d just go ahead and do it.

Klaus Doppler: Could you test what happened?

Andreas Nau: We sure could! We have monthly mee-tings with people of similar minds – let me put it thatway. And in these meetings we discuss technical in-novations and what needs to be changed. Earlier onit was usually the case that we’d taken these ideas tothe top where we had real allies who believed in whatwe were doing – only they were powerless to actuallyimplement. So at some point it all simply vanished

from the agenda. Such a forum would be an idealchannel for spreading these ideas throughout thewhole company and not just to one or two affiliates.

Klaus Doppler: That means putting on the pressure,releasing pent-up energy and seeing what kind ofwaves are created.

Andreas Nau: And perhaps then – no, not perhaps,for certain – some great business ideas would comeup when people simply start to talk to one another.You can see this kind of thing happening in societyand this is the direction we need to take with our pro-ducts too.

Klaus Doppler: Opening up these floodgates is a fan-tastic idea! Some people of course are going to havea heart attack when the first postings come through!But you’ve just got to let it all take its own course andin any case you always find such reactions in compa-nies. And people will simply learn to live and deal withsuch an instrument. Do you know of any company inGermany that’s done something similar?

Andreas Nau: In November last year there was a mee-

ting of the alumni of the Business Summer Schoolwhere we discussed the case of Synaxon AG, based inBielefeld. Their management team had introduced awiki where everybody could put in their own ideasabout reshaping the company.

Klaus Doppler: Right, even the most sacred hallowedcompany principles were not exempt from scrutiny ...

Andreas Nau: Exactly – and it worked! Frank Roebers,their CEO, wondered in the beginning what the out-

come would be … but right from the start everythingwent well. No misuse, open constructive criticism,high employee participation. All in all, a very positiveexperience!



we_special_ /

Re-thinking Leadership:A Cloud



we_special_ /

www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/leadership



we_special_ /



we_special_ /

eate Haussmann

holds a master’s degree in education (Diplom-Pädagogin). As CEO of aanagement consulting company, she has a solid track record in advising d coaching human resources developers in major corporations. As aalified riding instructor she also has many years experience in training rses. She brings her many-sided talents to bear on horse-assisted training

d education for teams and managers.



we_special_ /

Gudrun Porath:When trainees, some of whom will be senior managers, first arrive at your ranch, it’s a pretty safe bet to say that manyof them will be pretty skeptical. What makes them changetheir attitude? When do they open up and lay their skepticismaside? When does that moment of epiphany occur?

Beate Haussmann: It doesn’t come from me, it haspurely and simply to do with the horses themselves.And it’s always fascinating to watch. When the horsestrot into the riding arena and the music starts up, it’sso overwhelming that people forget everything elseand are carried along by their emotions. It really grabsyou by the heart, and it doesn’t matter if the horsesare big or small or if they’re bucking, standing still,rolling on the ground or gamboling about. Watchingthe videos and reading the texts just doesn’t give you

any adequate idea of just how moving it all is. It’ssomething you have to experience for yourself to un-derstand how truly impressive it can be and what kindof impulses such an experience can trigger.

Gudrun Porath:What’s the point of this exercise?

Beate Haussmann: People have to watch the group ofhorses and find out which of them is the leader. Wealways ask them what particularly grabbed their atten-

tion, which horse was the first to lie down. Mostpeople bet on the biggest horse, our champion, as theleader. So when we tell them that it’s the smallest andmost innocuous looking horse who’s the real boss,they’re always completely flabbergasted.

Gudrun Porath:Is there any connection made at this point to thebusiness world?

Beate Haussmann: Well, if it doesn’t happen here, it’s

bound to happen in the next exercise. This involvesparticipants putting large rings around the horse’sneck. And that’s not as simple as it may sound becausethe horses aren’t haltered and can move away at anytime. You have to find the right balance between di-stance and closeness. And while someone’s strugglingwith the exercise, we closely monitor the reactions ofthe group watching. For instance, if the other groupmembers start to laugh about what their colleague’sdoing, we make an instant talking point about their

reaction and ask what it shows about the way theircompany works. Does it have a corporate culture thatallows for mistakes? Usually, participants themselvesare pretty quick in putting their finger on the weakspots.

Gudrun Porath:Many people must surely think that if they’ve had someexperience with horses the training will teach them nothing new and that they’re going to be at a clear advantage.Is that really the case?

Beate Haussmann: Not at all. We’ve had experiencedriders and even riding instructors who’ve succeededneither better nor worse with the exercises than otherparticipants who’ve never been near a horse in theirlives. You really need to be authentic to establish con-

tact with your partner and arrive at a common under-standing. Only in this case your partner’s a horse. Thehorse’s reactions are no different to those of a personexcept that it doesn’t bother what you look like or talklike and that it’ll be quicker to give you a secondchance and doesn’t bear grudges unless you mistreatit. If you start to play roles, it won’t work. And thesame applies to almost all situations where we inter-act with one another – and to ourselves as well! Youalways have to be yourself. With or without a horse.

Gudrun Porath:In another exercise participants have to lead a horse around four stands in the hall. What’s the point of this, what can theylearn from it?

Beate Haussmann: The point of the exercise is to leadthe horse with a loose halter. There are some partici-pants – men for instance – who you wouldn’t particu-larly accuse of having a sensitive nature, who comeback and say “That was great, really heart-warming”and the other group members all look thunderstruck

because they’ve never seen their colleague in such alight before. Then we ask them how they assessed thesituation and what they’d felt while watching it. Onetypical answer is “It looked really harmonious” or “Hedid it really well”. Then the next one comes back fromthe ring and says “Oh that was really great!” Some-times I let them lead two horses at the same time, butthat doesn’t work with everybody. So perhaps whatpeople learn about themselves is that they’re muchbetter at leading one-to-one than at group leadership,



we_special_ /

and that some people need more leadership and oth-ers less. What’s important is that participants them-selves can select “their” own horse. Some of themchoose a more difficult horse where things probablywon’t go so well. That’s another situation you canapply to real life.

Gudrun Porath:After each exercise you discuss what the participants haveobserved and the person who’s just been working with thehorse talks about what they felt. How important is thisfeedback?

Beate Haussmann: What’s really important is that thisdirect kind of feedback takes place. Actually you cansay that it’s a three track feedback. First of all you havethe immediate feedback from the horse, then from

the other participants. And a great number of themhave told me that they’ve never before experiencedsuch an open and honest type of feedback in such ashort time. That comes from the horses who are alwayshonest. And the third type of feedback is the videoreplay where people can see themselves in action anddiscover quite a lot about their own characters. For in-stance, whether they’re holding the halter too tightor giving it too much slack, quite unconsciously be-cause this is not something they’re aware of at thetime as they’re far too occupied with getting through

the exercise. Or even that they don’t recognize them-selves at all and say things like “But that can’t be me!”In this way people pretty soon get to realize thatsomething could be wrong in their own lives.

Gudrun Porath:You give people the general framework of the exercise, but you don’t necessarily tell them exactly how it should be done.

Beate Haussmann: That’s intentional because we wantto give people the widest scope for intuitive action. This

releases creativity and independent thought. A mo-mentum starts to form when you enter into a relati-onship with the horse and you notice that it can onlywork if you are completely yourself. It’s also veryhighly emotionally charged due to the special situa-tion and the animal itself. And it can trigger an im-pulse which starts a process which as it unfolds canchange the whole of a participant’s life – but whichcan also end in the participant handing in their notice.Before they send their employees to us for training,

we tell companies that they should be aware that forsome employees the outcome of the training couldwell be that they realize they’re a square peg in around hole.

Gudrun Porath:

The next exercise involves getting the horse to follow youwithout being held by the halter.

Beate Haussmann: This exercise is designed to teachparticipants that there’s no trust without respect andthat you have to find the right balance between thesetwo elements. This exercise takes place in the picade-ro, a fenced in rectangular area where the horse canfreely move about and escape from the trainer whichit couldn’t do in a circular arena. It can stand in a cor-ner and buck at anyone coming to it from behind.

Participants have to make the horse follow themvoluntarily. At the start of the exercise you’re told tomake the horse follow you without touching it. To dothis, for instance, you can use your arms and wavethem up and down which makes the horse respectyou. The art is to get closer while still having respectfor one another. The horse shows that it respects youby following you freely without any need for a halter.When the horse does freely follow you, once more thefeeling is overwhelmingly moving and brings tears tothe eyes even of grown men.

Gudrun Porath:

Is it really so necessary to keep on emphasizing how im-portant consideration and respect are, how important it is tolisten and respond to one another? It all seems so obvious.

Beate Haussmann: Yes, it might seem self-evident, butin fact it isn’t at all obvious. And we see this very clear-ly when it comes to our training exercise for leader-ship from behind. This is the exercise that reducesmany people to despair and the one for which they

need the most time. The exercise is so constructedthat you get a horse in harness as though it’s going tobe harnessed to a buggy. Only without the buggy andits shafts. So the participant stands behind the horseand holds the long reins to move it forward. Generally,I explain the various leadership positions beforehandand ask participants which position they consider tobe a dominant leadership position – in front of thehorse, by the side of the horse or behind it. Mostpeople find that a very difficult question to answer. In



we_special_ /



we_special_ /

quotes



we_special_ /

Ken Robinson

“If you’re not prepared

to be wrong, you’ll nevercome up with anythingoriginal.”



we_special_ /

Stephen Denning

“Firms that don’t delighttheir clients will go out

of business. Punto.End of story.”



we_special_ /

Umair Haque

“The more I think about it,we might need more

than a ‘reboot’. We need torewrite the code of human

organization from the

ground up.”

Tweeted by Umair Haque, March , , . am CET



Peter Kruse

“If you are authentic,you can be quick on the

draw because all thatPR-polishing isn’t needed

any more.”

we_special_ /



we_special_ /

Ed Schein

“A critical aspect ofleadership is the ability toaccept help and the ability

to give help to others inthe organization.”

(Helping, page , Edgar H. Schein)



“There’s noWE

withoutYOU!”

we_leadership - volume 05

Documents