Sean Park Portrait
Quote of The Day Title
The real source of all growth is human creativity and entrepreneurship, which always comes as a surprise to us, especial ... [hover]
George Gilder

Managing in the 21st century: not just about the kids.

About a month ago, management guru Gary Hamel posted “a list of 12 work-relevant characteristics of online life” that he felt that tomorrow’s employees would use as benchmarks to judge which companies “got it”. It’s a great list but I would go further and say that it’s not just about attracting the Digital Generation (or the Facebook Generation or Generation Y or M or whatever else you want to call today’s teens and twenty-somethings), it’s about attracting smart, connected, ambitious and energetic professionals of any age, but especially thirty and forty-somethings that are old and wise enough to have no illusions about the reality of working in a typical Fortune 500 company and have valuable “last century” skills but young enough to be able to want to reinvent their relationship to work and their employer.

1. All ideas compete on an equal footing.
On the Web, every idea has the chance to gain a following—or not, and no one has the power to kill off a subversive idea or squelch an embarrassing debate. Ideas gain traction based on their perceived merits, rather than on the political power of their sponsors.

2. Contribution counts for more than credentials.
When you post a video to YouTube, no one asks you if you went to film school. When you write a blog, no one cares whether you have a journalism degree. Position, title, and academic degrees—none of the usual status differentiators carry much weight online. On the Web, what counts is not your resume, but what you can contribute.

3. Hierarchies are natural, not prescribed.
In any Web forum there are some individuals who command more respect and attention than others—and have more influence as a consequence. Critically, though, these individuals haven’t been appointed by some superior authority. Instead, their clout reflects the freely given approbation of their peers. On the Web, authority trickles up, not down.

4. Leaders serve rather than preside.
On the Web, every leader is a servant leader; no one has the power to command or sanction. Credible arguments, demonstrated expertise and selfless behavior are the only levers for getting things done through other people. Forget this online, and your followers will soon abandon you.

5. Tasks are chosen, not assigned.
The Web is an opt-in economy. Whether contributing to a blog, working on an open source project, or sharing advice in a forum, people choose to work on the things that interest them. Everyone is an independent contractor, and everyone scratches their own itch.

6. Groups are self-defining and -organizing.
On the Web, you get to choose your compatriots. In any online community, you have the freedom to link up with some individuals and ignore the rest, to share deeply with some folks and not at all with others. Just as no one can assign you a boring task, no can force you to work with dim-witted colleagues.

7. Resources get attracted, not allocated.
In large organizations, resources get allocated top-down, in a politicized, Soviet-style budget wrangle. On the Web, human effort flows towards ideas and projects that are attractive (and fun), and away from those that aren’t. In this sense, the Web is a market economy where millions of individuals get to decide, moment by moment, how to spend the precious currency of their time and attention.

8. Power comes from sharing information, not hoarding it.
The Web is also a gift economy. To gain influence and status, you have to give away your expertise and content. And you must do it quickly; if you don’t, someone else will beat you to the punch—and garner the credit that might have been yours. Online, there are a lot of incentives to share, and few incentives to hoard.

9. Opinions compound and decisions are peer-reviewed.
On the Internet, truly smart ideas rapidly gain a following no matter how disruptive they may be. The Web is a near-perfect medium for aggregating the wisdom of the crowd—whether in formally organized opinion markets or in casual discussion groups. And once aggregated, the voice of the masses can be used as a battering ram to challenge the entrenched interests of institutions in the offline world.

10. Users can veto most policy decisions.
As many Internet moguls have learned to their sorrow, online users are opinionated and vociferous—and will quickly attack any decision or policy change that seems contrary to the community’s interests. The only way to keep users loyal is to give them a substantial say in key decisions. You may have built the community, but the users really own it.

11. Intrinsic rewards matter most.
The web is a testament to the power of intrinsic rewards. Think of all the articles contributed to Wikipedia, all the open source software created, all the advice freely given—add up the hours of volunteer time and it’s obvious that human beings will give generously of themselves when they’re given the chance to contribute to something they actually care about. Money’s great, but so is recognition and the joy of accomplishment.

12. Hackers are heroes.
Large organizations tend to make life uncomfortable for activists and rabble-rousers—however constructive they may be. In contrast, online communities frequently embrace those with strong anti-authoritarian views. On the Web, muckraking malcontents are frequently celebrated as champions of the Internet’s democratic values—particularly if they’ve managed to hack a piece of code that has been interfering with what others regard as their inalienable digital rights.

My first job (way back when) was as an analyst in an M&A department. But before a year was up and at the suggestion of the senior partner I was working for I applied for a job on the trading floor (as a bond trader.) The point my partner made was that in corporate finance, it mattered how old you were, who you knew and how much grey hair you had. (All things I was short of at the time!) On the trading floor however, not so much. There results and ideas mattered. In fact, the best thing about being a trader in the early nineties was well that many of the 12 items on the list above applied. At least for awhile.

If you work for a big bank or financial institution, score your employer – do they get more than 8/12? More than 4/12? Do they tick any of the boxes above? Answers in the comments please.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Hamzah
    Hi Sean - Seems like the US might be getting off its high horse about interent betting and finally opening up. rtrs article below. Any views on how you see this playing out?

    WASHINGTON, May 5 (Reuters) - U.S. Representative Barney Frank will unveil legislation on Wednesday to roll back a U.S. ban on online gambling, he said in a statement on Tuesday.
    The new bill would exempt operators that are licensed and regulated from the ban enacted in 2006, Frank said.
    The Massachusetts Democrat said his legislation "will enable Americans to bet online and put an end to an inappropriate interference with their personal freedom."
    The Frank bill is likely to be opposed by anti-gambling Republicans. The ban was imposed during the Bush administration and has damaged U.S.-European Union trade ties.
    European online gambling firms lost billions of euros in value after Congress made it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to online gambling sites.
    Republicans controlled the White House and Congress when the law was approved. Now, Democrats are in control in both branches of the government, but it is unclear how the Obama administration will handle the issue.
    Companies involved in the issue include PartyGaming Plc and 888.com <888.L>. (
  • Chuck Farley
    (Sean -- I believe your Disqus comments are broken again on Firefox 3.0.10 on XP. And your XML feed is stale, showing the Weatherbill article as your most recent.)

    The last big, evil investment bank for which I worked as a permanent employee scores a solid 4 on the test. The last software shop I worked at gets an 8 or 9, confirming the trendy "banks are dinosaurs" mime. To my friends that are distant from the finance world, I tend to describe an investment bank not as feudal, but as a huge lumbering hill giant who manages to accidentally squash a few bugs once in a while. The hill giant is stupid, reactionary, top-heavy, and doesn't realize that software is its sustenance ("bugs").
  • (via @efinancialnews)
    Ego? Moi? Myners claims Sir Fred Goodwin hired someone to ensure only notes bearing his name were in the ATM at HQ. http://bit.ly/cuMu0</blockquote>

    Hill giant sighting...
  • This article came up in discussion shortly after I resigned from my banking IT job. I think senior managers can look through a list like this and find examples that tick the boxes from around the organisation; but doing so is dangerously self deluding. Reflecting on this makes me draw parallels with a book I'm reading right now - Charles Stross's 'The Family Trade', which is about parallel worlds - one the modern one that we know, and another that hasn't really moved on from feudal times. The twist is that members of a certain clan can transport themselves between worlds - the 'world walkers'.

    Using this metaphor I think the banks are firmly stuck in the old world. They can cite examples of their riches when looking at feudal lords and princes within the organisation; but most of the population lives in medieval squalor. They can also tick boxes on this list by counting in their 'world walkers' - people like me - but that's cheating the game as such people end up wishing that they could stay on the 'other side'.
  • But surely this feudal attitude will (well it already has...) lead to failure? Need to hit the history books to re-acquaint myself with failure path of feudal systems leading to new order... Renaissance? Reformation?
blog comments powered by Disqus