Productivity and mobile devices
February 24, 2010
Lenovo unveiled their new tablet-capable business laptop last Monday. The company made a conscious decision not to bring out an iPad like tablet PC. They said customers don’t want it. “The feedback was that for our customers it would not work because of the need to have a physical keyboard.”
The discussion around a virtual or physical keyboard caught my attention. The purpose of a keyboard is fairly straightforward: to get words onto the recording medium. The ability to capture a symbolic representation of spoken language for storage or transfer frees information from the limits of individual memory or location. But do we need a physical keyboard for that?
The patent for the typewriter was awarded in 1868 to Christopher Sholes. An early problem of the typewriter was the jamming of the type bars when certain combinations of keys were struck in a very close sequence. As a solution to the problem, Sholes arranged his keyboard in such a way that the keys most likely to be struck in close succession were approaching the type point from opposite sides of the machine. The keyboard is actually configured to minimize speed of input. At the time, reducing the speed of the typewriter was the best way to prevent it from jamming. The QWERTY keyboard was designed to accomplish a now obsolete mechanical requirement. It can be claimed that it is very unproductive to use a keyboard as an interface to productivity tools. The situation would of course be different if we all used ten fingers and did not need to look at the keyboard as we type.
Mobile phones are still mainly associated with communication, not productivity software. As a result a knowledge worker needs two devices: a laptop and a mobile phone.
No mobile phone has created as much of a buzz as the Google Nexus One since Apple launched the iPhone. As in other Android-based mobile devices, there is no physical keyboard. Text input relies on a virtual keyboard. But there is also a voice-to-text input functionality. We could use our voice and video instead of a keyboard! And additionally the camera is paving the way towards augmented reality!
The third device category is tablets: bigger than mobile phones but smaller than laptops – and often without a physical keyboard. The critiques claim that tablets like the iPad are just laptops without keyboards, while others are really mobile phones with proper-sized keyboards, without any definition of a real market need. At least the Lenovo customers don’t want them. Hopefully the Lenovo case is not a matter of history repeating itself, as when Ken Olsen was explaining that DEC customers didn’t want PC’s.
The question here is not only how we think about the means of input. In the corporate context, it is even more about how we think about productivity and what kind of software can be called productivity software.
Productivity is a function of interaction
Instead of thinking about productivity as if it were associated with certain types of documents, it is closer to experience to think that productivity emerges or does not, in people’s interaction with each other and in interaction with the devices we use. Productivity is a function of interaction. Interaction is the content of social media! Therefore, it may not be a very good idea to bring the old document-based productivity software to mobile phones, or use Lilliputian keyboards.
The key productivity focus should be on widening and deepening interaction and reflection. This leads to a new perspective on information-related practices and productivity tools. Rising productivity requires changes in the way we communicate. Can there be a richer and easier way to use our devices? This, by the way, is the main sales argument behind the iPad.
The fastest immediate increase in productivity comes from either learning touch typing or using voice and video as means of input. Perhaps the keyboard of the future is speech combined with transcription? Anyway, the productivity software of tomorrow needs to be interaction-based. The most efficient productivity suit of tomorrow may well be a combination of Twitter, blogs and Facebook.
You only need one mobile device! The decision as to whether the device you need is a mobile phone, a tablet or a laptop may not be the most important one what comes to the quality of interaction. An artist friend of mine said that when he paints, he does not interact with the canvas, “the recording medium”. He interacts with the world beyond the canvas.
Thank you Kuutti Lavonen
Background
On cognitive and social presence
February 22, 2010
Have you ever wondered why you don’t see anyone reading a book when you visit companies? We associate reading with finding information and learning, but we also involve qualities such as contemplation, solitude and mental privacy when we think about books.
There is a mental framework that is used when dealing with books, and another distinct mental framework regarding information related practices in the corporate world. Basically, you are not allowed to read a book but you can read a document.
Documents and word processing are part of the mental framework of management today. Documents were born from the needs of a hierarchical, systemic approach to management. Information flowed down from the top in the form of PowerPoint slide decks containing vision statements, Excel sheets with goals and Word documents explaining corporate procedures. Information, which flowed up from the bottom, was used mainly to provide reports and data for managers, helping them to keep their employees accountable and to ensure the smooth operation of the business process.
The framework of computerized word processing is associated with terms like information flows and the sharing of information. This is not something you normally talk about when discussing a book. While a book provides a view of the contemplative mind, documents create a view of controlled content. Do you still ask why you can read a document but you are not allowed to use Facebook?
Instead of predictive process flows, knowledge work in practice follows a very different logic. A senior executive in one of the most successful multinational corporations in the world explained what was going on:
- There may be a triggering event that needs to be explored.
- The exploration is performed most efficiently through transparency, wide area engagement and a communal process of distributing the cognitive load of the case.
- People don’t perform job roles. People participate in tasks. You don’t delegate, you invite!
- People from the whole community should participate through voluntary self-organization as widely as possible at the same time, not sequentially.
- The industrial process was long, sequential and divided. The knowledge based process is short, parallel and interactive.
- As many people as possible with applicable skills should contribute, each spending as little time as possible.
- Finally, the contributions and comments that are received should integrate into a modular solution than can be iterated.
Knowledge work is about a community-based cognitive presence. But cognition is just part of the answer. Work today is even more about social presence. To manage is to participate in the live conversations.
There cannot be management without a social presence.
A dramatic shift is needed in the mental framework of information, communication and work. Without this changing mindset, no efficient implementation of social media can be made in the corporate world. Work is communication. Conversations and narratives are the new documents. Conversations cannot be controlled. The only way to influence conversations is to take part in them. The most meaningful conversations are the ones where customers voice their views. Those conversations take place outside of the firewall in the new world of mass communication.
As much as we need to associate Facebook with work, we need moments of slower pace. We need to combine the qualities of contemplation, solitude and mental privacy with work.
Thank you Walter Ong. The photo is of an interior detail of the Alvar Aalto architecture in the Academic Bookstore in Helsinki
On Apple and Nokia
February 14, 2010
The terms “knowledge worker” and “knowledge society” are around fifty years old. Peter Drucker and Fritz Machlup, a less known Princeton economist, coined them at roughly the same time around 1960.
Although the concepts have now been around for a long time, it seems that the implications for corporations are not clear yet and don’t show in the way competitive strategies are made. What is quite evident is that the emerging society is different in many ways from the industrial society.
There are some things we know about knowledge work.
Effective skills are always specialized, as regards both, successful companies and effective people. This means that highly knowledge-based companies are always, by definition, only a partial answer to the opportunities available. Michael Porter made us to think that the players in the game of business were (1) companies, (2) customers and (3) suppliers together with old and new (4) competitors coming with alternative (5) offerings. This was called the five forces model. The company was seen as an independent, self-contained unit of competition.
Seven years ago, Bill Gates spoke often of the pet project of his. It was going to change computing for millions of people. It was the touch screen tablet PC. The device is still on sale, but it never raised a fraction of the interest that the iPad is now generating. Was it because Microsoft did the project alone?
Because of specialized, narrow skill sets, a new role with a new role definition is needed in knowledge work. Nobody, not even Microsoft, can be successful without supporting contributions from network partners. The new role is a “complementor”. A complementor is not the same as a supplier. The connection is based on a non-hierarchic network relation, not the hierarchic value chain. Complementary contributions may be the most important explanation of business success today. What would the iPad or the iPhone be without the applications made by people outside Apple?
A classic example of complements is computer hardware and computer software. The greatest hardware engineers are in dire straits without the greatest software programmers, as Nokia has found out. Though the idea of complements is most apparent in ICT, the principle is universal: you can never have in-house all the specialized skills you need. A complement to an offering is another offering that makes it more attractive. People value hot dogs more when they have mustard. Because knowledge work is specialized, it never pays to try to make both.
The new strategic imperative is to identify complementors and to be inviting to them. To be competitive, is to be “selfishly” collaborative.
Thank you Barry Nalebuff
The Google lesson for management
February 13, 2010
Eugene Garfield founded the Institute for Scientific Information in 1960. His pioneering work was in citation indexing. This allows a researcher to identify which articles have been cited most frequently and who has cited them. Garfield’s studies demonstrated that the number of citable items, i.e. the number of papers, together with the frequency of their citation, meaning how many scientists link to the paper, is a good measure of scientific success. Nobel laureates write more papers than other scientists and these papers are more linked to than other papers. The system effectively measures quantity and quality at the same time.
Links on the Web are also citations, or votes, as the founders of Google realized. The whole Web is a densely interconnected network of references. It is no different to the age-old practice of academic publishing and citation indexing.
The observation of Larry Page and Sergey Brin that links are citations seems commonplace today, but it was a breakthrough at the time Google started on September 7, 1998.
What Google did was essentially the same as had been done in academic publishing by Eugene Garfield. At this time, relevance and importance were measured through counting the number of other sites linking to a Web site, as well as the number of sites linking to those sites. The PageRank algorithm includes other variables as well, but the measurement of links is still the core functionality of the system.
What Google has proved to managers is that people’s individual actions, if those actions are performed in a transparent way, and if those actions can be linked, are capable of managing unmanageable tasks.
Collaboration and collective work are best expressed through transparency and emergent, responsive linking. The mainstream business approach to value creation is still a predictive process designed and controlled by the expert/manager. This is based on the presuppositions that we know (1) all the linkages that are needed beforehand, and (2) what the right sequential order in linking and acting is. Neither of these beliefs is correct any more. The variables of creative work have increased beyond systemic models of process design.
It is time to learn from the Web.
By relying on the uncoordinated actions of millions of people instead of experts/managers to classify content on the net, Google democratized scientific citation indexing. To be able to manage the increasingly complex organizations of today, the same kind of democratization needs to take place in the corporate world. Companies are transforming themselves from industrial mass production to creating value in wide area networks of mass communication. The transparency of tasks is the corporate equivalent of publishing academic articles. Responsive linking, rather than predictive linking, acts as a measure of relevance and is the guarantee of quality. This has served the academic community well. It made Sergey Brin and Larry Page billionaires. Now is the time to do the same in the corporate world. Complex, creative, knowledge-based work requires new approaches. The Google lesson for management is, that the more work is based on responsive processes of relating and the more organizing is an ongoing process in time, the more value we create!
Thank you Jeff Howe and Ralph Stacey
We share feelings much more than we share information
February 10, 2010
There is one universally agreed-upon feature of a good life: enriching relationships. Researchers claim that we take stock of the people in our lives and the “flourishing” we get through being with them. The strategy people normally follow, mostly unconsciously though, is to try to spend more time with the people we resonate with, and less time with the people we don’t resonate with that well. Beyond this obvious solution, an even better possibility would be to create, and re-create, our relationships to make them more mutually nourishing. Emotional contagion is a fact of life. It means that our moods and even physical health are created in interaction with other people. We tilt either to the positive or tilt to the negative as a result of our relations, and the further relations, the people that we relate with have. It is a chain of contagion that goes far beyond the horizon.
We could, in theory, make an inventory that evaluates the “richness” of our relationships. My dear friend Marcial Losada has made breakthrough findings on interaction. The thought provoking model he has created, which is based on decades of research, has three variables and three parameters. The variables are inquiry-advocacy, positivity-negativity, and other-self or external-internal orientation. The three parameters are connectivity, which is the critical control parameter, negativity bias and resistance to change.
According to Marcial, people are most successful when they are well connected, and are able to balance external vs. internal orientation as well as inquiry and advocacy. The relationship should keep a positivity/negativity ratio within the “Losada Zone”, meaning greater than or equal to about 3:1 and not more than about 11:1.
John Gottman on the other hand, has found that in a happy marriage, a couple experience five times more positivity than negativity in interaction. If we take the work of Losada and Gottman seriously, as we should, it would mean that there is a golden mean for any ongoing relationship in our lives, both private and corporate. If the positivity/negativity ratio is below 3:1 it would mean that there is a need for urgent mending. In situations like this, the way we intuitively behave is to end the relationship. But perhaps we should not. Do we know how WE affect the lives of the people close to us? How do WE impact on others? Do we help others to flourish? If not, should they leave us?
The critical success factor of Enterprise 2.0, is to understand that we share feelings much more than we share information.
The unfortunate reality in enterprises is that there is a negativity bias in most in-house communication. Communication is often about solving problems and giving negative feed-back. Organizations are also optimized for repetition. There is an in built systemic resistance to changing communication patterns. It is very safe to assume to start with, that the positivity/negativity ratio is in the red. Thus, the most important corporate process today is enriching interaction and the most important management process is enriching the interaction.
Thank you @pekkahimanen and @ Esa Saarinen for meaningful discussions
Enterprise 2.0
February 8, 2010
Corporations are the dominant mechanism by which economic activity is organized in our economies. How companies perform and what helps them to perform better are hence questions of huge importance. Corporations have such an enormous influence on our lives that corporate decision-making and actions might well deserve more attention right now than does discussing the new Enterprise 2.0 tools. Or, to put it in another way: what kind of changes in our corporate thinking would enable maximum benefits to be gained from social media?
One key question in corporate governance is, who should have the right to make what decisions, and why.
Instead of thinking that we already know the answer, let’s look at what is going on. Companies that focus on their share price, which is the business press doctrine, have the incentive to shut down, or move operations that are not generating the best possible profits for their shareholders, even though those operations are still generating substantial economic value in the area they are located in.
From the point of view of the people who are employed, and the society where those corporations are located, this is obviously not very efficient. I am not against globalization, quite the contrary, but it is doubtful whether maximizing the value of shares, maximizes social wealth. Can it be that the idea of companies’ “raison d étre” being the maximizing of shareholder value is a dangerously incomplete performance standard in post-industrial economies?
I am not suggesting at all that firms should serve all their stakeholders, or even society at large. I am certainly not talking about social responsibility here. What I am claiming is that there are other parties, other than shareholders, who have made an investment in the enterprise. In order to understand this, we should start by asking who is contributing to the enterprise, and what, and who is bearing what risk.
The question I am raising here is whether we can think of employees as labour any more. It matters in a very specific way who does what. The contributions of knowledge workers cannot be understood as fixed-wage generic inputs, but they can easily be understood as risk investments, in the very same way as we today understand shareholders’ financial contributions. We should ask whether the current social construct of allocating risks and rewards is inevitable for some reason, or whether it is an outdated industrial artefact that should be redesigned?
A large part of the economic surplus that a company creates is paid to the employees as wages. This is treated as an operating cost. Naturally, costs should be lowered. The picture would look somewhat different if we understood employees as being investors of human capital, and treated them accordingly. Our system of industrial management creates a systemic inefficiency in knowledge-based work. It can only be removed if the worker’s role included a more active (managerial) responsibility leading to responsive, agile practices. This cannot be achieved unless our mental construct of the employer employee relationship changes radically.
The change would mean that employees would explicitly bear the entrepreneurial accountability for the success or failure of the company, as they do any way and additionally benefit from any possible upside, just as shareholders do. From the point of view of corporate governance, it would mean that companies should be run in the interests of their employees, as much as in the interests of their owners.
To be honest, I don’t think that Enterprise 2.0 has that many employees, more contributors of different resources – mainly financial capital and human capital. Some investors invest for a long term, some for a very short term.
Thank you Gary Becker, Margaret Blair and Yochai Benkler
From who I am to what I do, and back
February 7, 2010
It is astonishing to realize that until quite recently, most human beings lacked a concept that is so obvious to all of us: earning money. The vast majority of people lived on the land. A peasant worked all day. He probably had a little money, but that was not what he worked for. He worked because life was work and work was life. It was as simple as that. A peasant did not have a job for which he was paid. Nor could he quit his work and take another position that was more highly paid, if one were offered. People were tied to the land they were born on. As they worked for the land, they worked for themselves and for the landowner, if they did not own the land.
The situation was fairly similar from the landowner’s point of view. The first expectation was not to lose any of the land he owned. The landowners also worked for the land, not for the money. The means they had in their possession to increase their resources were limited: cultivate the land, have children marry in return for increases in the amount of land they owned, or fight other land owners whose land they wanted.
Aristotle had interesting ideas to explain what was going on. According to him, the basic economic activities are domestic. This involved the production and consumption of all the things human beings needed in order to live. This is what Aristotle called “Oikos”, meaning a house. It was about house-holding, a kind of an entrepreneurial calling for the wellbeing of the family. “Oikos” together with another word “Nomos”, roughly meaning laws, are the ancient Greek backgrounds to our concept of “Economy”.
Aristotle makes a distinction between two kinds of value added – one that we get from nature’s resources to sustain our lives, and another, which we create to facilitate our interpersonal relationships and trade. The value added in the latter does not begin from nature, but from the promises we make to one another.
The first, for Aristotle, includes things like wood, animals, tools, stones for houses, yarn for weaving etc., and the second is – money. The interesting thing was that the essence of money was to him a promise!
There are limits to what we can get from nature, but, according to Aristotle, since money is promises, there is no end to the amount of money we can aspire to collect. What is special about money, Aristotle says, is, that its value is set by agreement. It has no intrinsic use value, only an exchange value, and it keeps that value only as long as people agree to accept it in payment. It is a convention of trust.
Therefore it is understandable that the system of trust always seeks a limit until it reaches a point where promises are not believed any more. This is the point at which fear replaces trust. After that limit is reached, the result is a rapid, sudden and deep drop, a credit crunch. The whole house of cards crashes, because it is made of promises that don’t have any value any more. The hot air turns into – just air.
The change that has taken place in a fairly short period of time in history has been remarkable. Money was invisible then, today it is omnipresent. Work existed then as it exists now, but the idea of work being life and life being work has disappeared. We mostly work to earn a living. We even dream of the day when we don’t need to work any more, in order to have time to really live. Work and life, instead of being inseparable parts of our lives, have become conflicting, almost contradictory ideas.
Adam Smith, in the Wealth of Nations, which was published in 1776, was one of the first to write about what we are experiencing now. He gave form to a new phenomenon: the labour market. In a sense, before he named it and before he explained how it worked, it did not exist. In a situation where life is work and work is life, a man cannot separate his work from himself. Adam Smith claimed that labour is something separate from the worker. This was the point at which work and life separated. It was no longer about who I am, but what I do. Labour was the new resource of the industrial age. As a resource, labour could now be bought and sold like any other resource. In fact, everything has been for sale since then. The emphasis of the economy shifted to trade, buying and selling, and away from (domestic) work. The sign of efficiency was now profit, which was measured in money. Thus the modern world came about.
This led to the situation we are in at present: buying and selling are no longer confined to resources, to trade. The world economy mostly consists of buying and selling money, buying and selling promises according to Aristotle. We believe that this is the natural order of things. Perhaps it is. But we should not forget that only about two centuries ago, it was not thought to be the natural order. It would be interesting to know what the situation we are in at the moment will look like two centuries from now.
Adam Smith is not helpful any more. We know now that the inputs of knowledge workers cannot be understood as generic labour. It matters more and more who does what, when, and with whom. The concept of a job role is giving way to tasks as the unit of value creation. Labour markets are turning into task markets. We also know that in the era of creativity and knowledge intensive work, the peasants are also the landowners. What is missing is a new theory explaining what is going on. Perhaps the future is going to look a bit like the past, not our industrial past, but the time before that. Perhaps the theory of social media and the Internet comes from ancient Greece. Perhaps Yochai Benkler is the new Adam Smith. Anyway, in social media, it is not what we do, but who we are. Life and work have come together again.
Thank you Charles van Doren, Stephen B Young and Douglas @rushkoff
Social Media requires us to see communication as a social act
December 11, 2009
In the sender-receiver model of communication a thought arising within one individual is translated into words, which are then transmitted to another individual. At the receiving end, the words translate into the same thought, if the formulation of the words and the transmission of those words are good enough. Then the receiver of the message selects a response and gives feedback. The meaning is in the words. Following this thinking, the most demanding task in communication ends with the transmission. The sender’s focus is on the best possible translation of thoughts into words and on choosing the best possible transmission channels.
There is however, a completely different approach to communication. The alternative view is based on the work of George Herbert Mead. This model does not see communication as messages/things/content that are transmitted or shared between senders and receivers, but as complex social action.
Communication as a social act
In the social act model, communication takes the form of a gesture made by an individual that evokes a response from someone else. The meaning of the gesture can only be known in the response. If I smile at you and you respond with a smile, the meaning of the gesture is friendly, but if you respond with a cold stare, the meaning of the gesture is contempt. Gestures and responses cannot be separated but constitute one social act, from which meaning emerges. Meaning is not in the words alone but also in the responses. Neither side can independently choose the meaning of the words or control the conversation. Thus you can never control communication.
When working with Social Media, we need to see communication as a social act in which actions evoke reactions. Gestures call forth responses. These responses are not selected independently. The responses are elicited at the same time as they are selected. It pays to be involved and it pays to try to keep conversations going. The really demanding task of communication only starts with the transmission!
Thank you Doug Griffin and Ralph Stacey
Digitaalinen työ, tietoverkot ja johtaminen
December 8, 2009
Liikkeenjohdossa ei yleensä puhuta siitä mitä tapahtuu, vaan siitä mitä pitäisi tapahtua tai mitä on tapahtunut. Sille, mitä juuri nyt tapahtuu ei tavallisesti anneta aikaa. Mutta mitä jos juuri ajalla ja paikalla onkin huomattavasti enemmän merkitystä kuin olemme ymmärtäneet? Mitä jos toiminnan tuloksellisuus onkin merkittävällä tavalla kiinni intensiivisestä läsnäolosta juuri siinä tilanteessa missä ollaan? Mitä jos kontekstiherkkyys ja siitä nouseva ketteryys ovatkin liikkeenjohtamisessa huomattavasti tärkeämpiä asioita kuin aika- ja paikkariippumattomat yleistykset menestykseen johtavista kausaliteeteista? Mitä jos toiminnalla on aina parasta ennen päiväys? Mitä jos jälkikäteen tapahtuvalla mittamisella ei voi ymmärtää sitä mitä tapahtui, puhumattakaan siitä, että toimintaa voisi tehokkasti ohjata mittareilla? Mitä jos tärkeintä on intensiivisempi osallistuminen tilannetta rikastavalla tavalla?
Organisaatioiden toiminta on toisistaan riippuvaisten ihmisten vuorovaikutusta. Vuorovaikutus on aina kontekstisidonnaista. Se tapahtuu aina ajassa ja paikassa, kontekstissa. Tässä vuorovaikutuksessa ihmiset sekä mahdollistavat asioita toisilleen että rajoittavat toisiaan. Samaten kontekstisidonnaisesti kutsumme ihmisiä mukaan, mahdollistamme osallistumisen tai jätämme ihmisiä ulkopuolelle, suljemme pois. Vallankäyttö verkostoissa perustuu juuri näihin muuttujiin: mahdollistamiseen – rajoittamiseen sekä mukaan kutsumiseen – pois sulkemiseen.
Johtaminen on vaikuttamista, joka tapahtuu kommunikaatiossa. Tämän johdosta johtajaa ei voi nähdä erillisenä, ulkopuolisena vuorovaikutuksen arkkitehtina, suunnittelijana. Ainoa mahdollisuus vaikuttaa on kommunikaation kautta – siihen osallistumalla. Johtajan tapa osallistua vuorovaikutukseen selittääkin merkittävällä tavalla organisaation menestystä tai menestymättömyyttä tänään. Johtaja on erityisen näkyvä ja arvovaltainen osallistuja kommunikaatiossa. Johtajalla on myös erityisen suuret valtuudet mahdollistaa asioita, jotka eivät muuten olisi mahdollisia tai kutsua mukaan vuorovaikutukseen tavalla, joka ei olisi kaikille mahdollista. Käänteisesti voimme kuvitella johtamisotteen, joka pelkästään rajoittaa tai estää osallistumista.
Johtaminen verkoston suhteiden ominaisuutena
Yhtä lailla kuin puhumme johtajasta vuorovaikutuksessa, meidän tulisi nähdä, että mahdollistamme ja rajoitamme toisiamme kaikissa suhteissa koko ajan. Johtaminen onkin suhteiden ja vuorovaikutuksen ominaisuus verkostossa yhtä lailla tai jopa enemmän kuin (johtaja)yksilön ominaisuus asemalähtöisesti.
Johtamista tuleekin tarkastella verkoston toiminnassa yhtä paljon tai jopa ensisijaisesti kun pyrimme ymmärtämään johtamista tänään. Vaikuttaminen ei ole vain aseman kautta syntyvä mahdollisuus. Verkostossa tapahtuukin aina paljon enemmän johtamista, ja harhaanjohtamista, kuin mihin esimies voi tai ehtii osallistua. Mielipiteet, joille annetaan arvoa, vaikuttavat samalla tavalla kuin mihin vaikuttaja asemastaan käsin pystyy.
Johtaminen vaikuttamisena syntyy samanaikaisesti johtajan suhteena alaiseen ja alaisen suhteena johtajaan. Esimiehen arvostus alaista kohtaan ja alaisen arvostus esimiestä kohtaan tarvitaan samanaikaisesti. Alainen tekee johtajan hyvin samalla tavalla kuin olemme ajatelleet johtajan tekevän alaisen. Esimies ei voi enää olla esimies ilman, että alainen haluaa olla alainen. Kielenkäyttömme liittyen vaikuttamiseen verkostossa on kuitenkin liian kapea ja stereotyyppinen. Kuvittelemme, että siinä on vain kahdenlaisia toimijoita: esimiehiä ja alaisia. Meiltä puuttuu sanoja, jotka paremmin selittäisivät verkoston toimintaa ja siinä tapahtuvaa vaikuttamista, johtamista ohi esimies – alaissuhteen.
Vuorovaikutuksen laatu
Kun ymmärrämme organisaatiot toisiaan tarvitsevien ihmisten vuorovaikutuksena kääntyy huomio vuorovaikutuksen laatuun. Johtamisessa korostuu tänään luovuuden ihanne. Vuorovaikutuksessa se tarkoittaa, että ihmiset hakeutuvat kohti niitä, jotka pystyvät luomaan merkityksiä syntyville, vielä epäselville, nouseville, uusille teemoille. Johtaja on silloin henkilö joka pystyy artikuloimaan sen, millä ei ole vielä hahmoa muiden mielessä. Käyttäessäni sanaa johtaja tarkoitan sekä mahdollisuutta vaikuttaa asemavallasta käsin että mahdollisuutta hajautettuun, emergenttiin vaikuttamiseen. Johtaja luovassa työssä on vastaavasti hän joka pystyy kestämään epävarmuutta kauemmin kuin muut ja hän joka mahdollistaa suuremman riskinoton luottamusta lisäämällä kuin muut.
Johtaminen tarkoittaa myös toistuviksi ja kapeiksi muuttuneiden aiheiden uudelleen määrittelyä vuorovaikutuksessa. Kaikki ihmisten välinen toiminta on kommunikaatiota. Johtaminen parhaimmillaan syventää, laajentaa ja rikastaa vuorovaikutusta. Tämä on erityisen tärkeää organisaation pyrkiessä parantamaan tuottavuutta, tai tilanteessa jossa vanhentuneet, liian kauan jatkuneet toimintamallit ovat kriisiytyneet. Tarkasteltaessa kriisiytynyttä tilannetta, on hyvin tavallista huomata, että vuorovaikutus on joko loppunut, sitä ei ole ollutkaan, tai se on kapeaa, samoja asioita neuroottisesti toistavaa ja samaa kehää kiertävää uudelleen ja uudelleen. Dominoiva osallistuja myös vaientaa helposti keskustelun ja siten jumiuttaa organisaation paikalleen. Johtajan tärkeä tehtävä on saada paikalleen juuttunut tilanne liikkeelle tuomalla vuorovaikutukseen uusia elementtejä tai kutsumalla mukaan uusia näkökulmia.
Tietoverkko mahdollistaa jatkuvan organisoitumisen ajassa
Toisiaan tarvitsevien ihmisten vuorovaikutus on yhä useammin perinteisiä rajoja ylittävää. Toisiaan tarvitsevuus ei ole ainoastaan fyysisesti paikallista. Tietoverkkopohjainen vuorovaikutus määrittelee uudelleen aikaisemmin fyysisesti paikallisen vuorovaikutuksen digitaalisesti kontekstuaaliseksi ja sitä kautta määrittelee myös uudelleen sen mistä puhutaan, kun puhutaan kilpailukykyisestä toimijasta globaalissa kilpailussa. Ei ole välttämättä hedelmällistä nähdä maata kilpailemassa muita maita vastaan, tai puhua monoliittisesta yrityksestä kilpailemassa muita yrityksiä vastaan. Vaihtoehtona voisi olla kilpailun ja yhteistyöverkostojen jatkuva dynaaminen, ketterä muodostuminen. Tavoitteena olisi nähdä elinvoimainen toiminta jatkuvana, joustavana organisoitumisena ajassa, jossa vuorovaikutukseen osallistuvat muodostavat koko ajan muuttuvia, eläviä ryhmiä digitaalisessa verkossa ja sitä kautta koko ajan muuttuvan ja kehittyvän hahmon ja elinvoimaisen, dynaamisen identiteetin.
