Читать книгу Touch - Tod Maffin - Страница 8

Leadership

Used with permission © Rob Cottingham, Noise to Signal. http://www.robcottingham.ca/cartoons/

Humanity is a Leadership Asset

I define a leader as anyone who holds him- or herself responsible or accountable for finding potential in people or processes.[5]

— BRENÉ BROWN, RESEARCHER AND AUTHOR OF DARING GREATLY

Few things have put pressure on organizational leaders as profoundly as digital communication, particularly social media. The evolution of digital culture, with real-time scrutiny and in-the-moment humanism, has demanded leaders of all shapes and sizes of organizations embrace a new era of open, honest, and real interactions, whether in person or online.

Yes. Both are possible. Both are happening. Dismiss them at your own peril. There are already community leaders, political leaders, and business leaders who have successfully applied their innate interpersonal skills from in-person interactions to their interactions over email, blog posts, text messages, photographs, Facebook updates, LinkedIn posts, tweets, audio podcasts, videos, and more. It’s happening all around us.

The most significant barrier to adapting to this new model of leadership is overcoming established norms for leader conduct.

For many years, before free agency, baseball players and fans shared a fairly close bond. Baseball players were human beings, accessible both in terms of being members of the communities for which they played and of having a lifestyle and career that was within reach of the average fan. The business of baseball, encompassing free agency and television revenues, created and progressively widened the divide between the average fan and their on-field heroes. Suddenly, both the players and the hope of becoming a professional athlete seemed inaccessible.

Community, political, and business leaders seem to have gone through a similar evolution. As organizations and aspirations grew in scale, there seemed an increasing distance between the average person and the top brass. Open-door policies were more about perception than reality. They lacked follow-through and often seemed to haunt the career of the person who was bold enough to test the policy.

Social media has done more than just introduce the notion that there is a shorter distance between the average person and a leader of any sort. It has challenged the very way leaders must conduct themselves. Sincerity and vulnerability, long found in the liability side of the ledger, have fast become valuable assets.

It’s been said leaders are in their role because they hold themselves to a higher standard. As social norms have evolved, the standard is becoming increasingly human (we expand on this topic later in this chapter).

Rewards for Being Yourself

Peter Aceto agrees there is a perception that many leaders lack human qualities. In his role as the President and CEO of Canadian bank Tangerine (which operated as ING Direct Canada until April 2014), he is one of a growing number of leaders whose style allows a human organization to flourish. He’s also cracked the code of human interactions online.

“I’ve come to the determination that I will be a better leader inside our organization, and outside for our customers, if I’m real and authentic,” Aceto told us. “I empathize with customers who are upset because they’re frustrated because we made a mistake or they can’t get the answer they want. And I empathize with employees and what it’s like to have a young family or to have your father be sick.”

Aceto confided that it wasn’t his instinct to be real and authentic when he was charting his own career in law and business. He was all too aware of what was expected with respect to workplace personas. It was a mentor at ING Direct who sat him down one day for a chat. His mentor listed things he knew about Aceto. The list included difficulties Aceto faced with his father and Aceto’s love of hockey. He suggested Aceto allow these things to be known to the people around him rather than trying to appear perfect all the time. Being himself, tearing down the facade, would allow others to be interested in him and more interested in being led by him.

Aceto admits this advice had a significant impact on his success as a leader. “I’ve been rewarded for being myself in life and in work.” He notes that being vulnerable and letting down his facade has created openings for people to trust him.

If people don’t trust you, your marketing won’t be worth anything. This is another lesson Aceto learned, one that tested his leadership and relied heavily on his style.

ING Direct Canada ran an ad campaign for their Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) product in January 2013. Research suggested RRSP season caused Canadians to feel anxious and stressed about the decisions ahead of them, so the campaign hinged on ads portraying people who looked overwhelmed with an ailment identified as “RRSP” which ING would help cure. The TV spots were posted online.

The ads were not well received. Not long after they were released, people, particularly those who are affected by mental health issues, expressed their disgust at the ads, saying they were in poor taste. While depression was not directly stated in the ads, it was clear the ads suggested that idea. In addition to the online backlash, Aceto personally received emails from people whose loved ones had suffered from mental illness and had taken their own lives. Gut-wrenching emails.

Aceto made the decision to pull the ads and issue an apology six days after the ING campaign was launched. He’s pleased with and proud of having made that call and notes five specific facts regarding his decision to pull the ad.

1 It was the right decision. Aceto and ING never meant to offend anyone and they didn’t foresee the offence. Had they, the campaign would not have run.

2 It was a costly decision. Aside from a misspent marketing budget, there was a negative impact on ING’s sales of RRSP products that season/year from both the criticism and the missed opportunity to market their products.

3 The decision to pull the ad and apologize was well received and apparently earned Aceto and ING some positive recognition.

4 In hindsight, he should have made the decision more quickly.

5 He and his company are not perfect. They occasionally let people down. When they do, they are obliged to apologize. And they turn it into a learning experience to improve the way they do business.

Leadership Encounters of Another Kind

The world came to know Commander Chris Hadfield from December 2012 through May 2013 … and beyond. Hadfield lived aboard the International Space Station (ISS) during those six months, serving as commander for the last three. His breathtaking photographs of our planet and outer space, insightful tweets about life on Earth, and videos of living in space made him something of a celebrity. It was his version of David Bowie’s song “Space Oddity” that turned Commander Hadfield into an international space sensation.

What many people don’t know is that none of the tweets or videos would have happened if not for Hadfield’s son, Evan.

The younger Hadfield worked tirelessly to coordinate social media content from the ISS and interactions between his father and the public. Evan’s efforts did something for space travel that hasn’t existed in nearly fifty years, since the lunar landings: He helped create a strong bond between the public and the space program.

There’s a wonderful metaphor in how he describes public fascination with what he had his father sharing from the ISS.

“Space has historically been beyond the reach of the average citizen,” Evan told us. “Now there’s the expectation that space is coming within the reach of the average citizen.”

We agree. Social media isn’t just shortening the distance between ourselves and the potential of a vacation in space because Chris Hadfield showed us how to brush our teeth in zero gravity. It’s allowing anyone considering a career at a financial institution or looking to hone her leadership skills to come within reach of people like Peter Aceto.

In fact, it was through social media that we made contact with Evan shortly after his father started tweeting from the ISS.

We admit that it may seem unfair to compare a business operation on planet Earth to an orbiting mecca of technological innovation. What we’re really talking about is building a human connection with your audience using whichever on-ramp you can identify. Often, that’s about allowing others to see where they fit within the experience. The space example means that when Evan and Chris fielded requests for photos, they were often from people who wanted to see their own hometowns.

“That sounds like an ego thing,” Evan dismissed. “Really, what people are saying is ‘show me where I am in all of this. How do I look in comparison to this whole world? Where am I in this world of experience? How do I fit in?’ That’s what we tried to show. We tried to be as inclusive as possible. We tried to look through as many eyes as we could to help people see themselves.”

Often leaders overlook that all-important part of human communication: the unique quality they, and the world in which they operate, offer to their interested audience.

Notice we said interested audience. Intended audience and interested audience are not always the same. It’s important to watch for both in your interactions, be they in person or online.

You might find that your leadership style and skills, particularly once humanity kicks in, will have a broader reach and may even earn the respect of some of your harshest critics. While that may not be your intent, even critics have been known to go to bat for their adversaries if they believe it’s merited.

Becoming a Chief Humanizing Officer

There are many great examples from the formative days of social media that illustrate the importance of the human touch in organizational culture. Perhaps because they were so groundbreaking, they often find themselves repeated in books within this genre.

Take the example of tech enthusiast Robert Scoble. He was a frequent contributor to some online support groups for Microsoft software dating way back to the early 2000s. During that time, he also blogged about Microsoft and its products — sometimes his posts were positive, sometimes critical. His contributions proved so valuable, Microsoft hired him to, essentially, continue blogging and producing short video pieces as he had been doing.

Outside of honouring regulatory restrictions on the reporting of financial and leadership information, Scoble’s posts didn’t require the approval of a legal committee or review board. They went live on Microsoft’s website without any corporate review. Even when they were critical of Microsoft.

In that way, he had earned the unofficial title of Chief Humanizing Officer.

Scoble put a human face on Microsoft because he was empowered by the company’s leadership to speak as a real person.

Pope Francis seems to have embraced the role of Chief Humanizing Officer within the Catholic Church. While we can’t speak to how he runs things inside the Vatican, or how some people might view the pontiff’s approach to the church, we’re particularly taken by how the pope seems to have embraced many of the concepts we’re presenting in this book.

The pontiff made international headlines when he broke Palm Sunday tradition in 2014. He abandoned his prepared homily to speak from the heart (though the media preferred to use the term “off the cuff”) for fifteen minutes. Then, as the Popemobile navigated St. Peter’s Square, Pope Francis jumped off (sometimes while the vehicle was still moving) to mingle with the people. The pope posed in selfies with followers. He even accepted tea from someone in the crowd.

Associated Press reporter Frances D’Emillio wrote, “The pope wants to put people on the margins of life at the centre of the church’s attention.”[6] He’s doing exactly that. And he’s doing it by being a Chief Humanizing Officer.

Modern leaders are often celebrated not because of the status bestowed upon or assigned to them, but because they make it possible for us to see ourselves in them.

Three Phrases to Refine

Leaders are responsible for setting the overall direction for an organization. While tools like business plans and KPIs certainly help, the most powerful tool a leader has at his or her disposal is their own personality. It’s how they present their values, model behaviour, and build (or destroy) relationships.

Leaders present their personality largely through their voice, tone, and messages. Which makes it incredibly baffling that, despite a growing number of high profile case studies, many leaders lack the ability to speak with basic candour and clarity.

We see this gap in voice primarily with two of the most important phrases in human communication — acknowledgements and apologies.

Thank You

Mark took bar mitzvah classes. (That’s right. Jewish boys don’t just magically become men when they’re thirteen. They take classes first.)

He remembers one very important lesson he learned from the cantor[7] of his synagogue, David Aptowitzer. He was tasked with preparing Mark to lead the Saturday morning service which would propel him into adulthood.

Part of the process was writing a speech that explained the Torah reading for the service and related it to Mark’s thoughts on becoming a young Jewish man. Most importantly, it was imperative he thanked his family, friends, and community for helping him reach this day.

Mark was proud of the draft of his speech, certain Cantor Aptowitzer would fawn over his brilliance and have his four classmates assemble to hear him recite his masterpiece.

That’s not what happened.

You’ve probably never seen so many red marks on a piece of paper before. Cantor Aptowitzer grumbled about inaccuracies in the telling of the story and expressed his disappointment that the analysis was weak at best. Then he stopped at one particular spot as though he had hit a brick wall. He looked Mark straight in the eyes and pointed at some text.

“I’d like to thank …”

He asked if Mark would, in fact, be thanking the list of people that followed or if he was only considering it. It was a Yoda moment: “Do or do not. There is no try.” The teacher was unambiguous. There would be no “wanting” to thank people under his watch.

So it came to be that Mark dropped “wanting.”

And, as it is written: there was evening and there was morning. One lesson.

At issue is how we take liberties with the English language. “I want to thank …” has become “leaderspeak” for actually thanking an individual or a group of people. It’s become part of the vernacular because we’ve heard it so often. Hearing is believing, perhaps. We don’t recognize the not-so-subtle twist that calls into question the sincerity of the thank-you.

Once you embrace this idea, you’ll be amazed how often you hear executives, politicians, and other public figures use this noncommittal language in their thank-you messages. On some occasions it is clearly an innocent mistake. On others, you’d swear the communication folk chose their words very carefully to deliver some messages and avoid delivering others (which is a delivery of its own).

“Wanting” to thank somebody is sadly wanting in sincerity. And, it gets worse.

“But”: The Anti-Thank

Mark hadn’t considered the impact of the word “but” until he and his wife, Andrea Ross, went for premarital counselling. Their family therapist explained that “but” is an exclusionary word whereas “and” is inclusionary. He converted Mark into the cult of “every ‘but’ can be replaced with an ‘and.’”

Consider the phrase “Thanks, but you didn’t have to do that.” It’s a perfect illustration of how the “but” disqualifies the initial “thanks” and chases it with a “no thanks.” The second part of the phrase seems to suggest the speaker doesn’t really appreciate whatever was done.

Now consider the phrase “Thanks, and that was completely unnecessary.” Suddenly the appreciation of what was done and the fact that it was unnecessary can happily coexist. In fact, you could even remove the “and” and make the statement even more direct: “Thanks. That was completely unnecessary.”

The important point here is that both wanting to thank someone and thanking someone with a “but” are noncommittal. It doesn’t take much effort to be direct and remove all doubt.

Surprise someone. Next time you or your organization need to thank someone, thank them, full stop. Don’t keep talking. Don’t drain the humanity from your statement.

I’m Sorry

Leaders don’t like having to apologize. They feel it makes them appear at fault, a fallible human being. Apologizing is often done as an act of defiance — or at least as an act of reluctance. They fail to see the value of a meaningful apology as the first act of reconciliation. More importantly, they fail to see the potential to convert a challenge into an opportunity to earn respect. By phrasing their statements in a certain way, leaders convince themselves they’ve answered to the public when all they’ve really done is ensured they’re in a legally defensible position.

Mistakes are big news. Often the apologies are as well.

Apologies are especially interesting since they come in a variety of forms. There are deflecting apologies: “I’m sorry, but if A didn’t do B then I wouldn’t have done C.”; anti-apologies: “I’m sorry if you were offended.”; and woe-is-me apologies in which the apologizers twist things to make themselves appear to be the victims: “I just want my life back.” Some apologies are hard to place. Count, among those, the epic apology issued by South Carolina governor Mark Sanford for having an affair and lying about it. He covers a lot of ground and weaves together a number of experiences and people as he fumbles through his eighteen-minute press conference. Apologies can be hard. Dragging them out can only serve to make them harder for you to deliver and harder for the intended audience to follow.

Apologies are important enough for someone to have created PublicApologyCentral,[8] a YouTube library of apologies — good, bad, and diabolical. You’ll find the bizarre, two-part “Mel Gibson Accounts for his Drunken Anti-Semitic Tirade,”[9] “Serena Williams Apologizes for Threatening Line Judge at the U.S. Open,”[10] (in which Williams manages to “flip channels” and mug in a way as to distract from her mistake), and the David Letterman segment “Michael Richards Apologizes for Racist Rant at Comedy Club.”[11] It’s noteworthy that Richards speaks directly to the point and never deflects or makes light of his mistake, even if he does stutter while collecting his thoughts.

The Right Way

An effective apology requires the right balance of three critical elements:

 the right words, which involves knowing which words to use and which to leave out;

 the right delivery, which involves using a personal tone and embodying sincerity in the delivery; and

 the right timing, which involves knowing when the apology should be issued.

A Model Apology (To a Point)

One particularly big SNAFU that received significant media attention was borderline high art. It involved now-former Toronto District School Board (TDSB) Director Chris Spence. He had penned “Without School Sports, Everyone Loses,”[12] an op-ed for the Toronto Star, which contained five instances of plagiarism.

It goes without saying this is terrible, particularly given the position Dr. Spence (as he was known at the time) held in the education ecosystem. We’ll leave the criticism to others.

It was a model apology. It should be studied and understood for its speed, decisiveness, clarity, and undeniable commitments by anyone who thinks they may have to apologize at some point (read: everyone).

Unlike public figures who have reason to be embarrassed by their actions (or at least humiliated for being caught), Spence took ownership of his mistake.

In his published apology, since removed from the Toronto District School Board’s website, Spence

 explained what he did: “I wrote that op-ed and — in no less than five different instances — I did not give proper credit for the work of others. I did not attribute their work.”

 illustrated how he failed to attribute work because he mixed assignments with other activities and didn’t properly track his obligations: “I did research and wrote down notes and came back at it the next day and wrote down the notes.”

 highlighted the reasons he should hold himself to a higher standard: “There is no excuse for what I did. In the position I am honoured to occupy, in the wonderful job I do every single day, I of all people should have known that.”

 owned his mistake: “I am ashamed and embarrassed by what I did. I have invited criticism and condemnation, and I richly deserve both.”

 detailed a plan to better himself: “I intend to enroll myself in the Ethics and Law in Journalism course offered by Ryerson University.”

In fact, Spence did something particularly important. He noted that, in his role as director of education, the consequences assigned to him should be more substantial than those assigned by the school board’s policy for students.

Spence achieved something significant in his statement. By being quick to acknowledge his mistake, direct and clear in his apology, and by declaring that he will better himself, Spence set himself up for a new and even higher degree of credibility should he follow through on his commitment. He also helped to make sure the issue became “yesterday’s news today.” At the time, Mark suggested a successful reinvention would lead to a lucrative book deal and professional speaking career.

Alas, it was not meant to be. Spence submitted his resignation two days later[13] after media reports revealed that, among other things, his Ph.D. dissertation also included unattributed quotes.

You Don’t Need a Crisis

The SWARM section of this book provides a thorough framework for dealing with handling issues and crises. These situations typically involve issuing an apology.

However, an apology does not always need to be in response to a crisis. Sometimes you or your organization can unintentionally offend someone with an offhand tweet or blog post. A crisp, clear apology is definitely merited in these situations. They shouldn’t be left to snowball into a crisis that demands media attention. In fact, a prompt and definitive apology can often thwart a crisis.

Courier companies have been the subject of high-profile apologies over the last few years. FedEx, UPS, and other courier companies have been at the centre of videos featuring delivery-people who have applied creative interpretation to the phrase “Handle with care.”

One such example involves a FedEx employee captured on video throwing stacks of boxes into the back of her truck. The video was taken on July 24, 2013, and clearly shows the uniformed FedEx employee standing at the back of truck 203 997 JRB laughing while playfully showing a co-worker, not in uniform, how to get distance when throwing the boxes.

The video gained a lot of attention. Very quickly.

FedEx issued a response on YouTube the next day. Shannon Brown, FedEx Senior Vice-President of Human Resources, spoke directly to the camera as though speaking to an individual. Great. He even added facial expressions and vocal inflections. Great. And the video came out fairly quickly. Great. Overall, there is a lot that’s very good about this apology.

As good as it was, we believe the apology lost some oomph when Brown closed the entire statement with “I want to apologize to all of our customers for the actions of this individual.”

This closing did three things to soften the apology.

First, Brown qualified his apology with the word “want.” This is particularly noticeable after he spent so much time being very direct with his language up to that point.

Second, he stopped talking to the viewer and started talking to an auditorium. It’s easy to feel Brown forgot he was speaking to a person watching a video.

Third, he redirected attention from his apology to the original misbehaviour of a now-former employee. He dialed us back to the problem and sent us on our way with the original issue in mind rather than his apology.

Imagine the same video. However, rather than closing with “I want to apologize to all of our customers for the actions of this individual,” consider if Brown ended with “This unfortunate event does not represent the good work of our committed workforce. I am very sorry. And, thank YOU, for taking the time to listen to me.”

Which version are you more likely to remember if the apology video came up in conversation at a later time?

Words Need Backing by Actions

We recall the textbook example of an apology from British Petroleum (BP) CEO Tony Hayward. Hayward began his company’s apology campaign on June 2, 2010, in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The reception of his apology was simultaneously both expected and unfortunate for BP and Hayward because without the historical context, the apology is almost perfect in every other way.

Before we examine the strengths of Hayward’s apology, let us present three exhibits offered by Hayward himself that make clear why his apology failed to connect with the public.

 Hayward was quoted as saying on May 14, 2010, “The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume.”

 When asked if he was sleeping at night despite the unfolding, cascading crisis of the Deepwater Horizon, Forbes magazine reported on May 18, 2010, that Hayward responded, “Yeah, of course I am.”

 Hayward’s May 30, 2010 attempt at an apology was clearly more self-serving than sincere when he said, “We’re sorry for the massive disruption it’s caused their lives. There’s no one who wants this over more than I do. I would like my life back.”

It seemed that every time Hayward had opened his mouth to this point, he gave his critics — even his supporters — good reason to shudder. Much of the disbelief played out online, including on the comical parody Twitter account @BPGlobalPR.

By the time Hayward issued what appeared to be that earnest June apology, any sincerity on his part was largely rejected by the public. If not for the mishandling of the oil leak by BP and Hayward’s perceived absence of communication charisma, the following would have made his apology welcome and appreciated.

The first thirty-three seconds of his video apology deals with the spill and a summary of what BP had done productively to that point. There are many who would argue with the claims Hayward made, except to note that he does open the video with the statement “The Gulf spill is a tragedy that never should have happened.” It’s attention-getting because it acknowledges what everyone was already thinking and saying, even if some will feel there was a calculated decision by Hayward to leave out mention of BP in that statement.

The strength of the apology kicks in around the thirty-four second mark.

“To those affected and your families, I’m deeply sorry.… To all the volunteers, and for the strong support of the government, thank you.”

Notice Hayward delivers a clear and inclusive “I’m deeply sorry.” By saying “To those affected and your families,” Hayward leaves the apology open for everyone who lives on the Gulf and, arguably, everyone who is affected by the Gulf oil spill.

He also gives an unqualified thank-you to those who volunteered with the cleanup effort and to the U.S. government. He doesn’t “want” to thank these people. He thanks them. Full stop.

In the end, actions speak louder than words, and communication failures trump successes. Hayward misplayed his hand and that of BP. The online masses made that known.

Robots and Leadership

Guy Hoffman tells a fascinating story about how he came to design and build “robots with soul.” His story begins with being inspired by Pixar’s animated short film Luxo Jr. You may have seen it. Luxo Jr. was meant to showcase some amazing advancements in computer-generated imagery. However, like all Pixar projects, the magic is in the human-relatable story. Technology, as amazing as it is, serves as a mere backdrop to this story.

Hoffman wanted to make it possible for people to have the same kind of real life interactions with lamps as were presented in Luxo Jr. — the ability to share a knowing look, to play and work together. He did. And he’s done much more than that. His robotic creations use technology to mimic moments of emotional connection. He builds personality into his robots, giving them the ability to groove to music in human-familiar ways and participate in free-form music collaboration, including predicting music structure and connecting with other participants in the performance.

What’s most remarkable is how people respond during their interactions with Hoffman’s robots. His efforts considered two types of robotic brains. He refers to one as the “calculated brain.” It functions with a very programmatic and calculated robotic response. The other, he calls the “adventurous brain.” It functions more like an improvisational actor who is willing to take risks and interact with the surroundings — willing to make mistakes and correct them.

In his TEDxJaffa talk, Hoffman explains that he invited people to participate in an experiment with the robots.

“I had them do this very tedious task. It took almost twenty minutes and they had to work together, somehow simulating, like, a factory job of repetitively doing the same thing.”

It turns out people preferred working with the adventurous robot. They felt it “was more intelligent, more committed, a better member of the team, contributed to the success of the team. They even called it ‘he’ and ‘she,’ whereas people with the calculated brain [robot] called it ‘it.’”

In another video clip, Hoffman shows an interaction between the adventurous-brained robot and a rapper. In the clip, the robot is bopping alongside the rapper while the rapper is focused on his iPhone, reading lyrics. A few moments later, the robot turns to look at the rapper. The rapper instinctively turns to look at the robot and adds a skip beat to his rap. It’s all part of normal performance conduct, yet with a robot that is apparently invested in the experience.

We’re sharing this story not to advocate that leaders (or anyone, really) be replaced by personality-infused robots. The key takeaway here is that people preferred working with a robot that seemed more human, that exhibited a personality. People actually felt as though they had formed a partnership with the adventurous-brained robot. Meanwhile, the calculated-brain robot was described as “a lazy apprentice” that did only what it was supposed to do “and nothing more.”

The question is, which type of robot leader are you? Calculated brain? Or adventure brain? Guess which one is TOUCH.

On the Horizon

Social Business Is No Longer Optional

As social media and digital marketing become more deeply ingrained in the human vernacular, they will no longer be seen as external to traditional marketing techniques and practices but rather key components in the overall functioning of a business.

Embracing social technology and understanding its functionality and specific role in relation to one’s industry will become increasingly important, even for those at the very top, who up until recently have been able to plead blissful ignorance when it comes to how technology and social media is shaping their business’s future. Leaders must also be equipped to handle and process an unparalleled amount of big data and know-how to pull meaning and implement actionable items in a fast-moving, highly reactive, and interconnected global economy with new power players and developing nations who are quickly adapting a more Western lifestyle.

Future leaders must have a skill set that encompasses deep digital understanding in order to navigate the complex world of tomorrow, mitigate potential threats, and steer their company or brand toward sustainable profitability. The days of CEOs and high level executives not understanding how technology works or impacts their business are numbered. After all, by 2025, millennials will comprise 75 percent of the workforce. “If 89 percent of them are currently using social media, how can anyone not think that social business will be imperative?” says Jeff Gibbard, president of True Voice Media.

Convergence and Digitization

Leadership always begins with a picture of the future.

— MARK MILLER

The future of business is undeniably digital and convergent, but behind every step we take forward, technologically speaking, there is always a human dimension informing it. Rather than having separate tools to perform specific tasks, we are moving into a realm where our tools are increasingly multifunctional and ubiquitous. Ways of working together that were once thought of as radical (remote offices/workforces) are now becoming the norm (for better or worse, as we’ll learn later in the book). Leaders need to understand the implications of these trends and be prepared to lead a dramatically different team or operation to success along paths that may look nothing like they did ten years ago.

NBIC, which stands for nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science, continues to transform how we interact and do business. Some experts believe that by 2030, nearly all work will be done in the Internet cloud, where data and applications are hosted on servers which can be accessed from any device, anywhere with an Internet connection. In many ways, we’re already there. Convergence — technology that interacts synergistically — will also influence how people run companies from the inside as well as playing a central role in customer-facing technologies (mobile apps, customer relationship management and software systems, and eCommerce). In this race of who can innovate and integrate the fastest, there are destined to be winners and losers in terms of what gets adopted by whom and how quickly, and what ends up becoming obsolete.

In a 2014 Forbes story, only 21 percent of business leaders said they have a clear digital vision. Leaders will need to live with a certain amount of uncertainty, as the outcomes of NBIC innovation are highly unpredictable, and must remain sensitive to society’s general reaction to radical technological leaps and adoption patterns.

Emphasis on Human Dimension of Employees and Collaboration

The adoption of technology and the population that is online continues to shape how we work and how leaders lead. The pervasive nature of cloud computing, collaborative/mobile work applications, and a stronger emphasis on work-life balance render the concept of “private” or “personal” time much more hazy.

As we continue amalgamating our public and private lives, the onus will slowly shift onto employers to provide a work environment that celebrates and respects the personal lives of their employees and to modify policies to allow for a more transparent border between work-life separation — or connection, depending on how you look at it. Flextime and work-from-home days are already part of many employee packages in a number of progressive corporate environments and are bound to become the rule rather than the exception, with more and more companies adopting virtual arrangements. This needs to be carefully measured for productivity gains, though — as we’ll point out later in the book, the trend to move workers out of traditional office spaces sometimes backfires.

TOUCH POINTS: Five Leadership Takeaways

It is possible to use social media and other technological tools and platforms to convey your human side. It’s not rocket science. It’s about being who you are in person, online. People are already doing it, from students to business leaders.

The digital age has complicated human decisions with shiny technology, making the path to successful outcomes less clear. If you have identified and embodied human values in your organization, a path will appear. And you’ll be better equipped to navigate the rough patches.

Trailblazers are often showcased and sometimes skewered for challenging the way things are. If it wasn’t for them, we wouldn’t see ourselves in bank presidents, astronauts, and religious leaders. By being genuinely you, you can help people see more potential in themselves.

Messages worth delivering are worth delivering well. Don’t spin or sanitize your message. Be direct, use words people understand, and take only the time necessary to be understood.

People relate to other people and the embodiment of human qualities. While we do like our devices and align ourselves with particular brands, there’s nothing quite like sharing a moment. Why else would researchers be so interested in creating human-like robots?