Leadership 2.0
We can’t live without leadership. We as people need organizations to combat chaos. With groups we can accomplish more. And to function in groups we need leaders. But as defined in the big changes ahead for us post hierarchy will dissolve. What will this mean for leadership?
First Leadership 1.0
- Build in layers.
- Higher layers decide who is in the lower layers and what they do.
- Higher layers get more than the lower ones
- If leader is compromised the organization is at risk of crumbling.
- Reorganizations are very complex and difficult.
- Top bottom structure
Leadership 2.0
- No top and no bottom, just one fluid dynamic system
- The network is formed by common passion
- Leaders form naturally and only inspire to bind and direct group. They are among them as one of them.
- Groups are more fluid, dysfunctioning members can connect with other groups
- No way to bring down complete organization by compromizing members
- Reorganizations happen all the time and are easy.
- Network/ lava lamp structure
As you see the network of people led by leadership 2.0 is more fluid and future proof. If the leadership works it creates more solid groups and more passionate users. Organization 2.0 is more difficult to bring down.
Related:
JurMo.us » Politics 2.0 Said,
February 26, 2007 @ 15:47
[...] Politicians are generally chosen by the people in democratic countries. Well we tend to believe so but many are still selected backdoors to be elected. (for example in the US who gets the most financial support) The parties tended to be run by an elitist top that controls everything. To succeed is all about building goodwill at the higher level. This type of politics is a fine example of leadership 1.0. [...]
JurMo.us » Work 2.0 - The empty cubicle Said,
March 4, 2007 @ 12:49
[...] Leadership 2.0 [...]
JurMo.us » Top down - Bottom up Said,
April 2, 2007 @ 22:23
[...] Leadership 2.0 [...]
JurMo.us » Order in Chaos: why butterflies matter Said,
April 7, 2007 @ 0:18
[...] Leadership 2.0 [...]
Verkus Said,
January 23, 2008 @ 17:57
I wrote a buncha crap, read the whole thing to completly understand. (Hint: EXUBERANCE)
Leadership 1.0 may overall fail and crumble and wither and die…However, it’s fun… As long as it brings some form of joy in the moment that’s all that matters. That’s the way the world will always see it, but nobody would admit that their lives, and everything is pointless, nothing will change anything in the long run… The world is on an axis of hypocracy. Barak Obama’s descretly campaigning “Im black aren’t i awesome”, as well as Hillary Clinton “I’m a sexist genius woman arent i awesome (or femanist because sexist females don’t exist as much as racist black people do)”. Clinton’s entire campaign is lies, thus i come to the conclusion she’s not a sexist, because that could be a lie. Her entire being could be a lie! She’s probably a computer generated image made by Blizzard, the fuckin richest company ever because they found out “Hey people are gulibal and would pay $15 a month for shit” (15x9million=???) Or she could be The Hydra! She gets assassinated by a sniper *BOUWWW* 2 heads sprout, she starts stomping around the stage, eating random citizens. “Oh god!”, says the sniper, *BOUWWGGGH* shoots again, you got a 5 headed Hillary Clinton terrorizing the city. The only way to defeat her is if Mobius 1 from Ace Combat 4 shoots his missles adjacent with George Bush swinging with the sword Excalibur…. The media makes it look more fancy though, but really that’s all that’s happening. With a leader like George Bush you know exactly how he’s going to fuck you over, you still get fucked over…but you know how. With a leader like Hillary Clinton, or Barak Obama, there’s no telling how you’ll be fucked over…
Jurriaan Mous Said,
January 26, 2008 @ 0:56
Maybe you play too much games
With every new person comes new flaws. But I tend to look at the new perspectives. And although I don’t live in the USA I think it needs some new perspectives and flaws that come with that perspective.
But thinking in that everybody has a way to fuck you over when they are in power is I think to far fetched. They all want to do the best. But the problem is that everybody has to compromise on some groups of people for hopefully the greater good.
Well leadership 2.0 requires a whole different kind of politics. One that is not based on static figureheads but more a dynamic leadership. But it requires a more contributing community. And I think it still needs a long way to go to grow that. And if I can call my preference it would be Obama with his uniting past in the poor polarized neighborhoods and least ‘corrupted’ by existing political methods. But it is not easy to see indeed who is really behind the brand of a 1.0 leader….