1) You have painted leadership 1.0 only in negative light, whereas, as with ‘web 1.0′, it seems like it’s not that it was bad, as such, just that it was all that could be then, in terms of concept, it still served a good purpose (and I think more than just to get us to leadership 2.0). And also, what will leadership 2.0 look like compared to a 3.0? Whatever that might be. Am I taking the analogy too far? :-)

2) This is off topic but about leaders USING the web. I sometimes watch a speaker online, who are talking to their church community, wherever they are, but posting the message online making it readily available to the whole world (which I don’t think a bad thing in itself), but find myself thinking ‘I don’t think this message is FOR the whole world, I think it’s only FOR your church community, and it actually might cause more confusion or disagreement than edification when heard by people in completely other contexts than the one the talk was written for.’ Makes me think that the web is a leadership 2.0 tool that leaders maybe feel compelled to use… but it’s not necessarily the best tool in the box for every job. Is that a fair thing to think? Thoughts?

Thanks again for sharing, I’ll stop by again.

A wonderful article! Succinct and insightful. I saw it on Linkedin where it was posted by Hans van't Riet in the group, Innovate the Future. I shared my thoughts there, but wanted to leave them here, as well.

I've always believed in more collaborative, horizontal-style leadership. I learned years ago that no matter how many "brilliant" ideas I had myself, I wasn't always going to be the smartest or most creative person in the room. There are exceptions to every rule (many are capable of hitting solo home runs), but generally, leveraging the experience and expertise of others via the sharing and layering of ideas has always been a powerful way to make good work great and more importantly- to truly bust down doors and be innovative.

I call this "creative courage"- not just the willingness to try a new approach, but to work within the framework of a team and without ego. And indeed, it takes courageous leadership, a trust in your people and the ability to rise above your own ego to foster and implement it effectively.

I'm a tail-end Boomer / early Gen-Xer and my own sensibilities have always leaned towards those of younger generations. As a result, for 13 years, we've always offered flexible hours; unlimited vacation (you trust your people to be self-responsible); and a non-hierarchal work environment where team-members are able to wear multiple hats and gravitate naturally to where they are most passionate and as a result– most effective.

That said, while I've always encouraged transparency, dialogue, engagement, sharing and collaboration, I do find myself still learning. The GENUINE passion and level of conviction that I see in young leaders today to adhere to altogether higher levels of ethics, honesty, selflessness and the building of sustainable communities continues to SURPRISE and DELIGHT me!

Additionally, although our firm has long operated this way internally, Web 2.0 is increasingly allowing and encouraging all of us to explore this type of engagement outside of our offices and across the globe. I'm still waiting to see exactly what kind of tangible results this produces and how it will all work- but it is certainly interesting and exciting and seems the logical way of the future.

Last, while I see amazing young leaders emerging from the Web 2.0 generation, I would encourage "old-school" leaders not to lose themselves in self-doubt. As powerful a force as youthful new ideas (and new idealism!) are, it is equally easy for all of us to get lost in the hype. Like all things in life, balance is key.

There is value in common sense, wisdom and experience. There is always a need for someone to "take the point", guide and make decisions. There is always a benefit to balancing idealism with practicality. Mentor these young leaders. They'll decide –or learn from experience– what to throw out and what to hang on to. Share of yourself as they share of themselves, and help them reach their full potential (and by virtue of this, help all of us).

A wonderful article! Succinct and insightful. I saw it on Linkedin where it was posted by Hans van't Riet in the group, Innovate the Future. I shared my thoughts there, but wanted to leave them here, as well.

I've always believed in more collaborative, horizontal-style leadership. I learned years ago that no matter how many "brilliant" ideas I had myself, I wasn't always going to be the smartest or most creative person in the room. There are exceptions to every rule (many are capable of hitting solo home runs), but generally, leveraging the experience and expertise of others via the sharing and layering of ideas has always been a powerful way to make good work great and more importantly- to truly bust down doors and be innovative.

I call this "creative courage"- not just the willingness to try a new approach, but to work within the framework of a team and without ego. And indeed, it takes courageous leadership, a trust in your people and the ability to rise above your own ego to foster and implement it effectively.

I'm a tail-end Boomer / early Gen-Xer and my own sensibilities have always leaned towards those of younger generations. As a result, for 13 years, we've always offered flexible hours; unlimited vacation (you trust your people to be self-responsible); and a non-hierarchal work environment where team-members are able to wear multiple hats and gravitate naturally to where they are most passionate and as a result– most effective.

That said, while I've always encouraged transparency, dialogue, engagement, sharing and collaboration, I do find myself still learning. The GENUINE passion and level of conviction that I see in young leaders today to adhere to altogether higher levels of ethics, honesty, selflessness and the building of sustainable communities continues to SURPRISE and DELIGHT me!

Additionally, although our firm has long operated this way internally, Web 2.0 is increasingly allowing and encouraging all of us to explore this type of engagement outside of our offices and across the globe. I'm still waiting to see exactly what kind of tangible results this produces and how it will all work- but it is certainly interesting and exciting and seems the logical way of the future.

Last, while I see amazing young leaders emerging from the Web 2.0 generation, I would encourage "old-school" leaders not to lose themselves in self-doubt. As powerful a force as youthful new ideas (and new idealism!) are, it is equally easy for all of us to get lost in the hype. Like all things in life, balance is key.

There is value in common sense, wisdom and experience. There is always a need for someone to "take the point", guide and make decisions. There is always a benefit to balancing idealism with practicality. Mentor these young leaders. They'll decide –or learn from experience– what to throw out and what to hang on to. Share of yourself as they share of themselves, and help them reach their full potential (and by virtue of this, help all of us).

Try govloop or govscomed to see

Try govloop or govscomed to see

These are some shared ideas:
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

Leadership 2.0 should work as an open source or crowdsouring system allowing transparency and more than that mutual gift economy between the organization and its employees (if they are still called that way), the clients (and they will participate in the design, the production, the marketing and sales..) and the services providers.

In fact we could take this crisis as an "creative destruction" process in order to move to another model, but we have to understand that Leadership 2.0 is disruptive and will not be found on the main business street and surely not in Wall Street. Therefore the question is How will the Capital Human Developers emerge with a new training to teach the relevant skills for this new born and train leaders?

If you want to have a look at the discussion, you can find it here: TinyURL.com/rylalw and the presentation :http://prezi.com/69743/ . I personally believe two of the key skills in Leadership 2.0 are ability to open and engage conversations and learn from others, we can see how some business have started to do just : Dell, Starbucks, Threadless…. they're leveraging the creativity of the community…. We're no longer in the mass market but in the mass of niches.

These are some shared ideas:
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

Leadership 2.0 should work as an open source or crowdsouring system allowing transparency and more than that mutual gift economy between the organization and its employees (if they are still called that way), the clients (and they will participate in the design, the production, the marketing and sales..) and the services providers.

In fact we could take this crisis as an "creative destruction" process in order to move to another model, but we have to understand that Leadership 2.0 is disruptive and will not be found on the main business street and surely not in Wall Street. Therefore the question is How will the Capital Human Developers emerge with a new training to teach the relevant skills for this new born and train leaders?

If you want to have a look at the discussion, you can find it here: TinyURL.com/rylalw and the presentation :http://prezi.com/69743/ . I personally believe two of the key skills in Leadership 2.0 are ability to open and engage conversations and learn from others, we can see how some business have started to do just : Dell, Starbucks, Threadless…. they're leveraging the creativity of the community…. We're no longer in the mass market but in the mass of niches.

In these uncertain times, it’s more important than ever to heighten the sense of trust, commitment, and urgency within your organization. Large-scale change – the shifting of strategies, implementation of new systems, significant revamping of structures and processes – is critical to the success of every company today.

Successful Change Management & Turnaround. Make sure that you don’t end up like Bad Schandau. View the presentation: http://tinyurl.com/d5pajz

In these uncertain times, it’s more important than ever to heighten the sense of trust, commitment, and urgency within your organization. Large-scale change – the shifting of strategies, implementation of new systems, significant revamping of structures and processes – is critical to the success of every company today.

Successful Change Management & Turnaround. Make sure that you don’t end up like Bad Schandau. View the presentation: http://tinyurl.com/d5pajz