The Postmodern Leader

What is a postmodern leader? He or she operates in the current environment which is marked by the challenges of complexity, unpredictability, and turbulence. He or she is you and I and we may be managers with position of authority or just employees who are not holding any position of authority in an organization.

Leadership is about influence and power that makes others follow someone on a path or a certain direction. To see how this influence and power to lead people on a path has shifted to us as individuals we may need to have a quick informal review of the history of leadership based on the pieces of knowledge that we have about the history of civilization itself. As we go through the different stages of development we hope to be able to give some explanation to events or make connections between different events.

Imagine a small band of hunters and gatherers 120,000 – 200,000 years ago as they roam the forest to hunt and forage for food. They saw everything as having spirit that made plants grow or the winds blow. They believed that there were spirits who had dominion over things. And anything that happened during that time was attributed to the spirit or what they believed was magic. They believed that the world was created by the spirits for them and those who could invoke the magic to make life better for them was in great demand. And in spite of the egalitarian nature of the hunter and gatherer society the shaman had the greatest influence in that era because he was believed to be able to invoke the magic and lead the tribe in the right path.

Eventually, when the ice age ended 10,000 years ago and people learned to produce their food from the land instead of relying on nature and the spirit, the acquisition, possession, enjoyment and ownership of land gave rise to wealth and with wealth came power – economic and political . The need to develop land created private ownership and ownership gave rights to owners to protect their land through codes of behavior and the institutions to enforce the codes. Therefore, the influence and power shifted from the shaman to the landowner who maintained authority over the land and its use. And anyone who was allowed to till the land owned by someone else had to agree to serve the owner in exchange for the right to do so (feudalism). In some cases conquests were resorted to increase production and those who were defeated were used as slave labor. Increased agricultural outputs supported a larger non-agricultural population who engaged in crafts and the production of services.

The production of crafts grew and gave rise to trade and commerce. As trade grew in the 1500’s, many ruling governments began to fear that that the prosperity of the state could be compromised if its supply of capital diminishes with a trade imbalance. Ruling governments then began the protectionist practice of limiting imports while expanding exports through the use of subsidies and tariff (mercantilism). They undertook exploration to find new outlets for their products and protected their colonies from other colonizers. As exploration reached out to far flung places and trade expanded the undertaking became bigger and borrowing capital from bankers to finance the venture seemed to be the easier method than raising taxes. This gave rise to banking that spread across the globe to serve their clients in different countries. Capitalists and bankers through the interest that they charge and arbitrage began to exert more influence in the economy of nations and in politics. And when governments could not raise money through legislation and taxes as quickly as required by circumstances like a war effort they resort to borrowings.

With a growing population in the 1700’s, the traditional method of domestic handicraft system of manufacturing was no longer adequate. The Enlightenment and the Renaissance that begun during the commercial age encouraged questioning, analyzing and improving things and led to scientific inquiries and methods that was used to usher in new inventions that revolutionized the world and brought forth the industrial age. This led to the factory-based mechanization . The industrialist began to adopt the scientific method pioneered by Adam Smith by introducing the division of labor that increased tremendously the productivity by workers. They began to use the moving production line to increase efficiency which was first seen as dehumanizing and was resisted by workers but because of the gains in efficiency workers were forced to adjust to the speed of the machines. Not only was work divided and standardized for easy training and not only was work speeded up by the moving production line but through the recommendation of Frederick Taylor people were selected on the basis of their skills or physical traits and match them to the requirements of the tasks. The resulting reduction of inefficiency and the use of machinery reduced unit cost to a level that the growing population can afford to buy. Therefore, practically anything that was produced was bought by the masses and the industrialist thrived sometimes at the expense of the exploited laborers – thus began the rise of modern management.

As the business expanded, shares of stocks were sold to many individuals to increase the capital needed to operate the huge enterprises that began to span the globe. With so many owners, the influence and power shifted from owners/ industrialist to professional managers, who were hired to manage the growing assets of the organization. These were the organization men who dedicated their lives to the achievement of the goals of the organization. The scientific method that began in the industrial age grew into a management science which professional managers were trained to use. Managers were trained in the four function of management introduced by Henri Fayol: planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. They used the same analytical tools such as the SWOT analysis, the Portfolio Strategy, Porter’s Differentiation Strategy or the BCG matrix to evaluate what was a predictable and quantifiable market. And when the marketing discipline was also introduced most managers started using segmentation, targeting, positioning and the four P’s. With the advent of more user-friendly computer in the mid to later part of the 1900’s more quantitative methods were used in analyzing the massive information that had become available. These professional managers were the stars and they ruled through command and control fostering compliance but creating an environment of fear, distrust and internal competitiveness. The public admired them for their exploits and the Board of Directors was willing to pay them star salaries. Professional managers searched for the rules that can improve processes, reduce costs, improve organizational efficiencies (re engineering), improve quality (Quality Circles) or create an innovation (skunk work) that will result into more efficiency and effectiveness thus increasing the profits that drew in more investors. They seemed to have the answers and people read their biographies to learn from them.

The growing use of the computers to run the business required programs to run the computers. Essentially a program told a computer how to solve a specific problem. And because the world was full of problems, the number and variety of programs that people wrote for computers was practically endless. Not all managers could write a computer program because they were either not trained for it or they did not have the time to devote to it. Therefore the power and influence shifted from the professional managers to a new breed of employees who were born with the computer and were more familiar with it than anybody else. They were the ones who wrote the programs that ran the computers. Others maintain the computers and the information system that ran the company. Employees also began to use the computer to gather information that their managers used to feed them. They communicated with each other bypassing departmental and organizational boundaries. These employees were the knowledge workers. And unlike the tangible current and fixed assets of the company listed on the company’s financial statement that stayed in the premises of the company, these intangible assets were not listed and they leave the premises of the company every night when they go home. These were the young, individualistic, freedom minded generation called the Generation X. They lived through corporate downsizing and were therefore more cautious than the previous generation called the Baby Boomers. They were said to be more conscious about social responsibility, were less materialistic and more interested in job satisfaction than in sacrificing personal happiness and growth for promotion. They chose where to work and often times dictated how they should be managed. When an employee walked away to join another company, the asset of the company walked away too. During that time organizations began to talk of people as the greatest asset of the company and began to design work that was more engaging and motivating to the people to retain them

Today, modern management is believed to have run its course because of the changes brought about by deregulation that allowed the unimpeded movement of goods across the globe and the development in the information technology that enabled the free flow of information to any parts of the world shrinking it into a global village and creating more transparency . There are products and services that could be produced or outsourced more cheaply in other parts of the world for the same quality. The supply chain was broken up or de aggregated into specialized or separate functions and was produced or outsourced where it made sense. This specialization in the global economy or in the global marketplace created what could be described as a global division of labor increasing productivity across the global economy. But as a result, competition has increased and has created a buyer’s market because of the availability of supply coming from all over the globe. Consumers now have a lot of alternatives, choose from a number of substitute products and select those that can provide quality at the lowest price delivered at the speed that meet or exceeds their needs. And the information they need to make a decision is instantly available online in the Internet and the information does not necessarily come from suppliers but from peers and even others whom they may not have met personally but who may have already tried the service or the product almost rendering advertisements from companies irrelevant. With more knowledge and growing sophistication in selecting from many new innovative products and services consumers can now afford to become more discriminating and could dictate what they want as individuals thereby fragmenting the market further. The influence and power has clearly shifted to the individual consumers making some businessmen think seriously that their real business is taking care of customers that provide a stream of cash. The consumers now dictate what they want and expect to be satisfied. That is you and I.

But if everyone else has the influence and the power then who is the leader? No one and everyone - that is the paradox. .

So how would we lead in these complex, unpredictable and turbulent times? How do we plan if we could not know the unpredictable result of a simple event that may have happened somewhere else in the world that we may not even be aware of or that which we may have thought was inconsequential? How could we organize to achieve our goals when situations are changing very quickly? I think we could if we change our mindset about how we should lead our lives or how we should lead in our work with our colleagues, office supervisors/managers, and clients/customers or consumers of the product or services that is produced by the organizations we work with.

Think about boat trips. In a river boat trip the currents would be predictable and the trip would be leisurely for the passengers and quantifiable for the crew that is led by a riverboat captain. The boat will be bigger so that it could have space for entertainment and also carry cargo for additional income. The riverboat captain would have all the training and experience needed to steer the ship clear to its destinations and he may even have the time for personal appearances for a relaxing evening dinners with the passengers. He would know what to do and what to tell his crew members in each cruise because he knows what to expect. Now, compare the river boat scenario to shooting the rapids where the bends are unpredictable because the rushing currents keeps changing the topography of the river banks, the water is rushing pell-mell and splashing down on rocks at breakneck speed, and the water is frothing white because of the turbulence. Under such a condition you will be both the tourist/passenger and crew member at the same time. Your boat will be smaller and sturdier with no place for anything or anyone that could not contribute to the effort. Everyone would be paddling furiously and shouting orders to each other at the same time to make sure the boat and its occupants do not get smashed into a river bank or into a rock. Everyone collaborates and commits to the goal of reaching the destination safely.

To a group shooting the rapids, there is clarity of what needs to be accomplished and trust that everyone will do his part. They have more “what if” questions given the uncertainty of what will transpire during the trip. The conditions themselves foster experimentation and innovation and even spontaneity because no one really knows what to expect. Therefore, the involvement and participation of everyone is important in the learning process. Everyone in the group has a role to play and is no less important or significant than the others.

Living and doing business today is like shooting the rapids, and the leadership required of us today is far different from those in the modern era of management. Consider the following:

1. Whereas modern leadership had the knowledge or experience in guiding others through the path, the postmodern leader may have no knowledge of what or where the path is.
2. Whereas there could be one star in modern leadership who told everyone what to do, in postmodern leadership everyone rolls up their sleeves and work with the group to look for the right direction.
3. Whereas the conditions in modern leadership were predictable and quantifiable, in postmodern leadership the conditions are never the same.
4. Whereas in modern leadership the answers to the questions were already known by the leader and could be given to the subordinates even before they ask, in postmodern leadership knowing what questions to ask each other and trying to discover together the answers to the questions as they go is critical.
5. Whereas in modern leadership people needed to be individually motivated for them to align with company objectives, in postmodern leadership people do not need motivation but a framework (community conversation) to find meaning in their work.
6. Whereas modern leadership had already established proven processes, postmodern leadership fosters experimentation to find what works in a new environment
7. Whereas modern leadership needed a bureaucracy and a hierarchy to efficiently coordinate the different functions to ensure the achievement of its objectives, in postmodern leadership the boxes are less defined in order to foster better connections across the organization so that it can deal with fast changing conditions.
8. Whereas modern leadership had a set of communication network that fed information on the need to know basis to employees and a scalar chain to trigger the communication, in postmodern leadership where boxes and boundaries are ill defined, the system is fed with rich information coming from all directions.
9. Whereas modern leadership annually cascaded downward the corporate goals and its value system through the hierarchy, in postmodern leadership the clarity of what the group have agreed they wanted to accomplish and who they wanted to be is a conversation that goes on continuously like a community always defining and redefining itself in a changing world.
10. Whereas modern leadership had already standardized and defined the role each one plays and had set policies to govern behavior in an organization, in postmodern leadership people are empowered to belong and to reach their creative potential in a loosely held organizations.
11. Whereas modern leadership required position, coercive and reward power to build organizations, postmodern leadership requires political and personal skills to build communities.
12. Whereas modern leaders kept themselves insulated from its constituency through layers in the organization, the postmodern leader makes himself available not only to his group but others outside of his own work group to listen, to understand and to see things from the perspective of others and to know what is important to them.
13. Whereas the modern leader gave answers, the postmodern leader asks questions.
14. Whereas the organization in modern leadership was hierarchical and bureaucratic, in postmodern leadership the structure of the company is more organic.
15. Whereas modern leadership was more goal or company oriented, in postmodern leadership the approach is more process and person oriented.
16. Whereas in modern leadership people acted more like employees waiting to be told what problems to solve, in postmodern leadership employees act more like consultants trying to understand the company direction and trying to look for problems to solve.
17. Whereas in modern leadership reliance was placed on the expertise of the CEO, in postmodern leadership there is more reliance on how to tap the different expertise which may or may not lie within the organization itself.
18. Whereas modern leadership maybe more self-contained and satisfied with its own expertise, the postmodern leadership always considers a network of experts that could be tapped to extend one’s own abilities and resources
19. Whereas modern leadership took calculated risk by relying on scientific management, postmodern leadership takes calculated risk by relying on relationships to accomplish something of substance
20. Whereas modern leadership may have acted to protect existing ideas and keeps extending its life span, the postmodern leadership will try new ideas, explore new initiatives, undertake new projects and try to get ahead by working quickly to build up experience in all the new opportunities that surrounds it.
21. Whereas modern leadership favored a more stable form of organization, postmodern leadership advocates adhocracy where expertise could be organized to implement certain projects or address certain opportunities or problems then could be disbanded when the project is finished – an organization that can coalesce and fragment.
22. Whereas modern leaders acted as more like a visiting fireman the postmodern leader acts more like a host
23. Whereas modern leadership wanted everyone to report to an office, the postmodern leadership may not require people to be in one office, and may allow people to work separately and get connected wirelessly to produce results

And since our mindset is still influenced by the modern way of thinking this approach may be difficult to accept because of our mindset about keeping order and discipline. But there could be no control in an interconnected complex world and it would be better for us to accept and deal with it as soon as possible. Every choice made equates into an infinite number of possibilities (butterfly effect). We can only prepare but we cannot control.

The postmodern leader is us. We now operate in an environment which is marked by the challenges of complexity, unpredictability, and turbulence. And it does not really matter whether we are in a position of authority or not. The availability of information and the means to communicate has empowered all of us to be able to exercise influence and power to make a difference in this world. We have the power to learn from others and let others learn from us thereby globalizing ourselves . Our choices influence the world around us. The question is do we have the courage to do so, to become the postmodern leader?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Emmanuel T. Santos, Organization and Management, page 370
2. Primal Religion and Civilization, http://www.macrohistory.com/h1/ch00.htm
3. Emmanuel T. Santos, Organization and Management, page 100
4. Emmanuel T. Santos, Organization and Management, page 101
5. William H Whyte, The Organization Man
6. Thomas Friedman, The World Is Flat.
7. Thomas Friedman, The World is Flat.