I have two ideas that I’ve been working up for areas to research during my Clore fellowship.
I’d like your help helping me to decide what I should be looking at, so here are the two ideas with a 350 word explanation of each.
I will be producing a 20,000 word paper (or equivalent – blogs, wikis, video interviews count).
Idea 1: “Conversational Leadership”
Over the last decade the term ‘thought leadership’ has become commonly used to label a particular style of leadership that involves distilling influential ideas into easily understandable and sharable concepts and then disseminating them through a variety of means to bring about some kind of change in those outside of one’s immediate organisational leadership structure.
With the sudden growth of social media technologies over recent years, is there something new emerging from this style of leadership? A new style where individuals are applying social media technologies to reach and influence a large number of people, but engaging in two-way conversations with many people in a highly public way, and in so doing acting as ‘conversational leaders’?
This model of how one can potentially influence another’s thinking given appropriate tools and access has caused widespread debate. Is the term ‘thought leadership’ jargon or is it a useful term to use when discussing how highly influential individuals are able to instigate change outside of what would historically have been considered their control? Are there any fundamental differences that are emerging in leadership styles of those who use social media platforms to communicate? Do MPs on Twitter have a different way of leading than those who are not?
I intend to find out what the truth is about these ‘conversational leaders’, and try to get an understanding, first hand, of what it means to be one. What issues does this mode of leadership bring up? What tools and techniques play a part? What are the aims of the people following this method of leading others? Do they even perceive their activities as ‘leadership’? Is there a perception that this is not a leadership role in the classic sense? Are we seeing something new emerging in terms of how leaders are expected to behave? Is this purely a technological trend or is this pointing to something longer-term and a fundamental shift in how leaders will lead in the 21st century?
Idea 2: “Leading by Accelerating Serendipty”
We live in exponential times. The instant availability to large amounts of information on an individual level is now at arguably the highest level we have ever seen.
Breaking news has migrated to online social networks as the place to ‘hear it first’ to the point where social technologies like Twitter are now more swift at reporting world events than any other network.
But that availability of information leads to a number of problems. We suffer from increasing ‘choice paralysis’ and information overload. Finding valuable nuggets of information in this sea of data can be hard.
Conversely, it is increasingly difficult for leaders to be able to know how to structure their organisations to enable them to react quickly to changes in the marketplace.
It is common for leaders to look to research and development departments to investigate new technologies, and to marketing and PR departments to investigate how to use these new channels for communication in effective ways.
But with such rapid changes occuring as a background, how should leaders structure their organisations? How should staff be enabled to be ‘listeners’ and to engage in using social media tools to bring about measurable benefits? If it is unclear what benefits come about through using these tools, how do organisations justify their use? How should organisations be physically structured and laid out in terms of location, architecture and interior design? What factors enable rapid collaboration and innovation?
I propose that at the heart of many of these issues lies the concept of ‘accelerating serendipity’. The idea that it is possible to lead an organisation in such a way that whilst not being aware of the intended ‘destination’ for where that organisation might be headed, it is possible to put in place management structures, policies, physical layouts, working methods, business practices and communications strategies that enable for a higher incidence of the ‘happy accident’. These ‘happy accidents’ could be potential business opportunities emerging from enouraging more collaborations with partners, enabling staff to mingle and discuss ideas in open plan environments, or encouraging staff to use ‘open innovation’ models for research.
I intend to research this theme and to discover if what I understand as ‘accelerated serendipity’ is a real factor that leaders think about, or if some of their behavioural trends could be labelled and made more meaningful when brought under such an umbrella.
What do you think?
These are drafts – hence blogging it before approaching people about it, but both of these areas are close to my heart and I could see myself spending the next year researching them. But which one? Which is most realistic given my already insane workload? Which would be most useful to you? Let me know!
Sorry, been meaning to reply for a while, and by the looks of it from Twitter I'm backing the wrong horse but ...
Conversational Leadership gets my vote. "Leading by Accelerating Serendipty" strikes me as just an updated business model - with a new driver of change being the noise around and volume of decisions to be made. But it is still a decision to be made, and a walk around any airport bookshop will show dozens of books to help the "modern executive" do just that.
I like the idea of expanding the definition of Leadership in the first to fit more with that in the second - leaders within a company. It is not just the thought leadership (or influence, perhaps, more than leadership) that can, and are taking advantage of newer forms of push/pull and conversational communication. Leaders are there to give direction and vision - perhaps that is where I argue that MP's aren't necessarily "leaders" (without getting into a long discussion regarding representation and mandate).
Most of all though what I think needs to be explored is the concept of "followership" more than leadership. The skills, aptitude and attitude of those who follow a leader are often forgetten. What of a CEO (or MP or Courvoiser Future 500) who can effectively lead those in a traditional communication style that is loosing their followers to newer styles? (US Elections anyone?) Or, more likely in tech-based thought leadership, what of those followers who are unfamiliar, uncomfortable or even suspicious of new communication tools? How can a new leader fight against their own companies' IT policies (bans on facebook and twitter, expecting empowerment to be felt as good by the team, expecting all members of the company to adopt an online company "persona". I think this is more than just communication change management - I think it is a truly potentially different way of leading a group / team /. company / nation.
I think (in a rambling comment) that I agree with Seth - that number 2 kinda points to number 1!
After reading through both of your research topics, I would personally like to see more information on Conversational Leadership. I feel that right now it would be more beneficial to understand what these leaders are doing right--especially since many of these 'conversational leaders' have their own businesses and could probably shed light on accelerating serendipity. When you later wrote, "enabling staff to mingle and discuss ideas in open plan environments," in the accelerating serendipity thesis, it threw me right back to your first topic. It seems that to fully understand A.S. you would have to first understand conversational leadership and the gains from it.
Thanks everyone. Susi - I think you have it right. With Idea 1 I was trying to do something smaller and more 'normal'. This is something I'll really have to get my teeth into and it needs to be something original for me to maintain interest over time.
Accelerating Serendipity is much more about digital and future and more relevant to me (and I think you) professionally - the other topic makes me think of Common Purpose which is bad news.
My other 2p worth - I procrastinate for ages on 6 potential topics for my Masters - and decided to go with the one in the end that would be most fun to do. Because it's a lot of time, that's the most important thing in the end.
It puts me in mind of one of the key points for success identified in 'Good to Great' -- that great leaders work out who to bring onto the bus (their key management team), and only then work out where the bus is going (what their business strategy and goals are going to be). It's about putting a great team together and then seeing where it wants to go.
I agree with Atom, your outline of Accelerating Serendipity appeals more to me. I'm not sure that Conversational or Thought Leadership is such a new concept; rather that the means and tone of such communication have changed with the times. The question of equipping an organisation to cope in an agile manner rings true with my own recent experience of moving towards a more structured (and moulded to suit our situation) agile development methodology. Your post led me to think about how such flexibility might be applied to an organisation as a whole... Could you write an 'agile' business plan, what form would it take, and would a bank credit it?!
I love the idea of an agile business plan. I was thinking that my next business plan would actually just be a wiki. But you're right - finding an investor is difficult enough without adopting those kinds of methods. But with the right label and justification for that approach you could make it more palatable to banks, surely?
Help me choose my leadership research topic
I have two ideas that I’ve been working up for areas to research during my Clore fellowship.
I’d like your help helping me to decide what I should be looking at, so here are the two ideas with a 350 word explanation of each.
I will be producing a 20,000 word paper (or equivalent – blogs, wikis, video interviews count).
Idea 1: “Conversational Leadership”
Over the last decade the term ‘thought leadership’ has become commonly used to label a particular style of leadership that involves distilling influential ideas into easily understandable and sharable concepts and then disseminating them through a variety of means to bring about some kind of change in those outside of one’s immediate organisational leadership structure.
With the sudden growth of social media technologies over recent years, is there something new emerging from this style of leadership? A new style where individuals are applying social media technologies to reach and influence a large number of people, but engaging in two-way conversations with many people in a highly public way, and in so doing acting as ‘conversational leaders’?
This model of how one can potentially influence another’s thinking given appropriate tools and access has caused widespread debate. Is the term ‘thought leadership’ jargon or is it a useful term to use when discussing how highly influential individuals are able to instigate change outside of what would historically have been considered their control? Are there any fundamental differences that are emerging in leadership styles of those who use social media platforms to communicate? Do MPs on Twitter have a different way of leading than those who are not?
I intend to find out what the truth is about these ‘conversational leaders’, and try to get an understanding, first hand, of what it means to be one. What issues does this mode of leadership bring up? What tools and techniques play a part? What are the aims of the people following this method of leading others? Do they even perceive their activities as ‘leadership’? Is there a perception that this is not a leadership role in the classic sense? Are we seeing something new emerging in terms of how leaders are expected to behave? Is this purely a technological trend or is this pointing to something longer-term and a fundamental shift in how leaders will lead in the 21st century?
Idea 2: “Leading by Accelerating Serendipty”
We live in exponential times. The instant availability to large amounts of information on an individual level is now at arguably the highest level we have ever seen.
Breaking news has migrated to online social networks as the place to ‘hear it first’ to the point where social technologies like Twitter are now more swift at reporting world events than any other network.
But that availability of information leads to a number of problems. We suffer from increasing ‘choice paralysis’ and information overload. Finding valuable nuggets of information in this sea of data can be hard.
Conversely, it is increasingly difficult for leaders to be able to know how to structure their organisations to enable them to react quickly to changes in the marketplace.
It is common for leaders to look to research and development departments to investigate new technologies, and to marketing and PR departments to investigate how to use these new channels for communication in effective ways.
But with such rapid changes occuring as a background, how should leaders structure their organisations? How should staff be enabled to be ‘listeners’ and to engage in using social media tools to bring about measurable benefits? If it is unclear what benefits come about through using these tools, how do organisations justify their use? How should organisations be physically structured and laid out in terms of location, architecture and interior design? What factors enable rapid collaboration and innovation?
I propose that at the heart of many of these issues lies the concept of ‘accelerating serendipity’. The idea that it is possible to lead an organisation in such a way that whilst not being aware of the intended ‘destination’ for where that organisation might be headed, it is possible to put in place management structures, policies, physical layouts, working methods, business practices and communications strategies that enable for a higher incidence of the ‘happy accident’. These ‘happy accidents’ could be potential business opportunities emerging from enouraging more collaborations with partners, enabling staff to mingle and discuss ideas in open plan environments, or encouraging staff to use ‘open innovation’ models for research.
I intend to research this theme and to discover if what I understand as ‘accelerated serendipity’ is a real factor that leaders think about, or if some of their behavioural trends could be labelled and made more meaningful when brought under such an umbrella.
What do you think?
These are drafts – hence blogging it before approaching people about it, but both of these areas are close to my heart and I could see myself spending the next year researching them. But which one? Which is most realistic given my already insane workload? Which would be most useful to you? Let me know!