>> MIM Speaks
LEADERSHIP FOR THE NEW ECONOMY
AUGUST 26, 2001 (P.35) -
THE STAR
A key question for today is: are we at the beginning of a "new
economy" or a "knowledge economy?"
It is clear at the beginning of the 21st century that the
economy will have a greater base in knowledge than has been the
case in the past. A large and significant sector of the economy
will more or less directly depend on knowledge as a critical
factor.
There will still be manufactured or agricultural goods - there
have to be but, at least in part, the value of these goods will
be a function of the knowledge that lies behind them.
Whether or not this represents something really "different"
within national economies is open to debate, however. It is
hard to find any sector of the economy where knowledge is not a
critical asset, both for the pursuit of the business activity
in its own right, and as a source of potential competitive
advantage.
The "knowledge economy" seems to embrace every part of the
economy. Moreover, knowledge has always been important.
The shift that has taken place in recent years has been to
extract this knowledge from staff and manual records and make
it both codified and shared - knowledge has always been
critical, and what is different is the extent to which it is
being documented and utilised.
So, has the knowledge economy changed the way we undertake
business activity?
Clearly, new knowledge management technologies have a number of
effects on the operations of an organisation, although their
full effect will take some time to develop and to become clear.
Knowledge-based enterprises can now include far more data in
their analyses relating to product design, production and
sales, etc. There are other changes, such as the so-called
"network effect." This is where the value of a product or
service increases the greater the number of people who use it
(quite the reverse of traditional scarcity models of value).
However, while these are important developments in terms of
business opportunities, there is little evidence to suggest
that the knowledge-based economy really represents a new kind
of economy.
Indeed, if the evidence of the past year is any guide on this,
there seems little reason for viewing recent developments as a
repeat of the kinds of technological changes that have greatly
affected enter prises in the past.
We have seen business booms fed by hype before, and they all go
through the same cycle: "boom, bust, and eventual steady
growth." Companies in a "new industry" grow rapidly in the face
of opportunity; most collapse. Just a few survive, and often
they are hard to spot in the early, heady phases of the boom.
As previous cycles have shown, there is no evident reason why
either the knowledge-based economy or new technologies of any
kind should change any of the essential characteristics of a
successful, ongoing business enterprise.
An enterprise still needs products, customers, cash flows, and,
most importantly, profits. It still needs good managers (which
is good news for business schools), market research, product
development, working capital, long-term plans and the
actuality, or the very real prospect, of providing as good or
better a return on investment for its financial supporters than
readily accessible alternative uses of the invested funds.
It is not obvious why the Internet or any other recent
technology changes any of these.
A second issue is the impact of change. In the past few years
we have seen the effect of technological change, globalisation,
and a shifting regulatory environment.
Taken together, these forces of change have created a complex
and highly interdependent world, dramatically different from
that emerging at the time of the Industrial Revolution, when a
small number of trading countries could effectively rule (or,
at least, control) the world.
Complexity brings uncertainty in its wake, with events having
unpredictable consequences. Political changes in one country
can have repercussions throughout the world, and many see this
as evidence that we are living "on the edge" (an allusion to
the interest in chaos theory as a way of describing and
understanding our environment, and the ways in which change
takes place).
All of these changes, coupled with the dramatic pace at which
information and communication technologies have developed, have
led many to conclude that we are going through an Information
Revolution (or a Knowledge Revolution).
We might summarise this by suggesting that the knowledge
economy can be understood as a phenomenon within a broader
paradigm shift from the industrial era to the next, perhaps the
"knowledge era?"
In the face of a more rapidly changing environment, we have
sought to change the structure of organisations and our
expectations of leadership. We are told organisations are to
become more flexible, responsive and have to develop a
"learning" approach.
Given this, leadership is no longer the prerogative of those at
the top, but critical throughout the new organisation. Now, it
seems, we need leaders everywhere, and, presumably, even fewer
managers!.
Some of the arguments about changes in organisations come from
observing some of the leaders in the knowledge economy. Many of
the companies that are said to typify this change are small,
flexible, and adaptive. Moreover, many are "fluid."
For example, it has been suggested that Silicon Valley is best
seen as one loose, amorphous and organic business, rather than
a series of discrete companies.
People keep shifting and reforming activities, and are often
simultaneously involved in a number of ventures, at different
stages of development, even competing among themselves.
The business practices of many of these companies require
strategic approaches that combine reactivity (at a higher
speed), anticipation (assessing change directions), and
leadership (determining the path of change).
This leads to strategies that are not concerned with plans, so
much as developing approaches that are unpredictable,
non-directive, and experimental, and strategy is diverse,
proactive, and continuously changing.
At the same time, the leadership challenge is to balance
structure against chaos, past competencies against future
skills, and established activities against continuous
innovation.
The leadership required is one that combines "survival," in
competing against others; "development," to meet anticipated
changes; and "reinvention," to create business leadership for
the future. Some commentators have argued that companies need
to become "revolutionary," trying, as it were, to "bring
Silicon Valley inside," to change the nature of the business in
radical ways.
In tomorrow's organisations, we will still need to ensure that
operations are managed, but this will be a smaller part of the
working life of the "organisation person."
We might not want to call that person a manager, because only a
small part of what is being done will be traditional
management, and people will work in more fluid and networked
structures than today.
Indeed, you could say that tomorrow's organisation person will
have to exercise management, leadership, strategic and
analytical skills, and there will be little place left for
anyone who is "just a manager."
In particular, there is an emerging set of ideas about models
of leadership for the next millennium that have at their centre
a rather different model of what we mean by leadership, and who
might be a leader. They are concerned with values and meaning
as much as outcomes and control, and are addressed to adaptive
challenges as much as instrumental outcomes.
They are predicated on a different fundamental precept about
how "leaders" relate to others, a precept that underlies the
so-called "servant leadership" approach.
The knowledge economy is not "new economy" (even if there is
evidence that we might need a new economy in the future).
However, the knowledge economy poses challenges to the
prevailing industrial model of work, and that these require new
and different approaches.
Given the deeper processes of change that are taking place,
within which the emergence of the knowledge economy is a
critical part, we need a new approach to leadership. It is the
challenge for the 21st century.
|