I love what you’ve written. I think though I have a different picture of what I think it’s like to work at Google.

I don’t think I know enough about the leadership style inside of Google to engage in a detailed debate, but there is an elusive business model/orientation that I will continue to try put my finger on. It’s this notion of how deeply decision-making ability is delegated and expected. It’s not for everyone. It’s not even for everyone in a progressive organization. Some people simply want to follow clear guidelines. Not me, though, and I suspect not you.

Another organizational example I’ve read about is Southwest, where their core mantra is something like “We are THE low cost air fare provider.” This simple statement (and an expectation of individual responsibility) empowers employees to take control, to use discretion and make choices for the organization; my wishlist for an employer includes sharing power, not hoarding it. I think it might actually best be described as anti-Taylorism. I don’t want someone to give me a detailed workflow. It kills the opportunity to do something unexpected and infinitely more valuable.

I use Google as an example because I think they actually have an anti-Taylorist philosphy for their employees that have built and are maintaining their monopoly position. Their metrics and their ability to capture really minute feedback is phenomenal, but I don’t think they’re tracking or defining their employee’s every move with the same level of scrutiny. Perhaps this is more of a feeling than an evidence-based, but I think they’re making a distinction between the measurement of their products and the measurement of their performers. They couldn’t get new and innovative products if it was all by script.

I recognize that the post does not capture the ideal traits of an organization for everyone. There are plenty of people that want detailed descriptions of what to do and when to do it. I’m presuming the readers of this blog aren’t looking for a “job,” but meaningful, challenging opportunities to make a difference. While organizational constraints may limit a particular position, I think we should give ourselves permission to not accept it for our own careers.

I have no doubt Larry Page couldn’t perform in a “rank and file” industry. Nor can I. We should pursue (or in Larry’s case, create) the kind of organization that asks for more.

First of all, I do believe that leadership does matter. I’ve been in the workforce for about 20 years now, working for various companies in both the private and public sectors and in various levels of responsibility from management to the lowliest of grunts. In all that time, I don’t believe that I’ve ever come across a patent “formula” for an effective leader. There are just too many variables — from the state of the industry that an organization is operating in to the make up (experience, education, expectations) of the members of the organization’s work teams. What works in some organizations and some contexts will be completely and utterly in-effective in others.

Secondly, my previous thought leads me to some irritation towards your assertion that companies such as Google are a great model for all to follow. I believe that, given the complexities invovled in both industries and organizations, it is overly simplistic to be looking to the Googles of the world for a one “true” model of leadership. Google is the current flavour of the day just as Microsoft was several years ago as was GE. No one is saying much that is positive about MS and GE these days (does anyone even give the books of Jack Welch a second look these days?!). Also, Google has a near monopoly on Internet search and advertising. When an organization has a monopoly (or even a near monopoly) on anything (whether it was earned or not), it is ultimately relatively easy to look brilliant (and for the leadership to take a lot of personal credit for success that is actually largely not of their own making). I’ve seen this personally in a couple of my jobs. Thus, it is potentially misleading and dangerous for any organization to look to a company like Google for too much inspiration. An organization needs to deeply understand its “make up” — the industry it is in, its current strenghts and weaknesses, its history, etc… — in order to determine what is the most appropriate leadership model and leaders for it.

Thirdly, what makes effective leadership is a very subjective thing. I don’t believe for one second that what you call “true leadership” can be exactingly and scientifically defined and put into what I’ll refer to as a leadership ‘algorithm’ that can be easily and effectively replicated from organization to organization — not only because of the second point I made about organizational and industry complexity but also because the effectiveness of any leadership is highly dependent upon what the followers are like. What are the attitudes and needs of the followers? What culture do the followers come from? Are they even willing to follow? I think in the points that you make you are once again guilty of bringing forth the perspective of a highly educated, upper middle class, North American individual who is seeking elightenment and self-actualization via work/career. As such, your needs for leadership and views towards it will be quite different from people of other backgrounds. For instance, please take a minute to consider how people from a Confuscist society such as China or Japan might view the points that you made in your blog post regarding what is important in a leader. I suspect that there would be quite a bit of disagreement. Not everyone, in every industry, in ever organization is looking for autonomy and input.

Finally, it is also important to consider — especially for those of us that work within larger organizations — that individual leadership can be a very fleeting thing in that, let’s say a CEO, has somewhat limited ability to lead given that he or she is operating within and existing bureaucratic system with rules and controls in place. Add an environment with a collective agreement in place and you have even more limitations and controls on behaviour. Here’s quote from Nicholas Carr’s book “The Shallows” that I believe is quite pertinent here as it references the impact of such bureaucratic systems and Taylorism as practiced by many larger organizations:

“Before Frederick Taylor introduced his system of scientific management, the individual laborer, drawing on his training, knowledge, and experience, would make his own decisions about how he did his work. He would write his own script. After Taylor, the laborer began following a script written by someone else. The machine operator was not expected to understand how the script was constructed or the reasoning behind it; he was simply expected to obey it. The messiness that comes with individual autonomy was cleaned up, and the factory as a whole became more efficient, its output more predictable. Industry prospered. What was lost along with the messiness was personal initiative, creativity, and whim. Conscious craft turned into unconscious routine.”

I’m not advocating for this position, I’m just stating here that this is generally the state of the art today and is likely not to change as Taylorism, with its focus on measurement and standardization in both manufacturing and service industries is not going away. Indeed, Google is the current king of Taylorist type philosophy — it attempts to measure everything that it does with extreme detail. Thus, I believe that there is a leadership paradox with respect to Google that needs to be explored a bit further. Why are its leaders and its management system characterized as so revolutionary when we know that this company is a monopoly and works with a Taylorist philosophy that is the antithesis of what is being preached as so effective with respect to organizing and engaging its people? Something just does not add up for me.

I’d love to see Larry Page from Google transported to the CEO of a mining company with a really strong union. Would he still be considered such a revolutionary and successful leader? I really, truly wonder….

I believe I’ve committed one of my own cardinal sins and looked at an issue from a singular point of view, that of the priviledged, educated, upper middle-class. Oops. I see that there’s a strong argument, and real value, in this open, public institution as a place where individuals can receive hands-on assistance and instruction, adding structure to a possibly ephemeral notion of “I want to know.”

I love how this post sparked some passionate responses. Clearly, I’m not the only nerd in the room. Wouldn’t it be fun to get to redesign the way a library works? I’m on board with it being a physical institutions that serves the ENTIRE public, but I maintain there’s lots of room to shift focus to strengthening an individual’s ability to have personal dominion over the information. “Teach a man to fish” type stuff.

I’m sorry I called you nerds. You’re totally super-cool and your comments made my day.

Very timely and provocative posting for me right now as I am, ironically, right in the middle of reading a book called “The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains” by Nicholas Carr. I recently took it out from the public library!

While not specifically writing about libraries, the author does a very thorough job of discussing the issues around brain chemistry as well as how various forms of technology that have developed over the past 2500 years or so have shaped human thought, society, and culture. It is very interesting to contemplate how things that we take for granted (such as the printing press) are now ubiquitous. Mass-printed text only showed up around 400 years ago but the impact of this on society has been incredible — from the invention of newspapers and books to cheaper and more widely accessible education.

Prior to the printing press a great deal of society was simply illiterate with a small elite of literate people, generally found within universities or monasteries. Cheap, printed material was revolutionary and it changed language and the way we think. The same thing is happening now with electronic media. Just as scribes became obsolete, seemingly so is printed text. I must admit that I have extremely mixed emotions about this as I, like you, am a book lover. I am an absolutely voracious reader of books — so much so that I am sometimes the object of friendly taunts from my peers. I enjoy holding a book in my hands – the feel of the pages, the lack of immediacy, the need to concentrate strongly for long periods of time and truly contemplate deeply what is being put before me. I hope that I never succumb to what I observe to be the “collective ADHD” of a lot of people who are currently very adept at using electronic media. I’m not sure that I’ll succeed though!

One of the arguments put forth in “The Shallows” is that consuming texts through hyperlinks, computer screens, smart phones, iPads/eReaders, etc. leads to a different type of reading – a type of reading that is not as focused on the moment; one that is easily, almost necessarily forced into distraction. I’ve definitely experienced this myself. Luckily I’m in my late 30′s and actually did learn how to be a focused and (I hope!) deep thinking student. I’m worried that this is not the case among the latest generations of children — I’m not sure that they’re learning to focus and contemplate things within the deluge of information that is coming at them from myriad devices.

This is where I can see and partially agree with your views on the public library. No doubt, as technology and delivery mechanisms change, the library will have to adapt itself. The start of this can already be seen to some extent in public and university libraries that I have visited lately. The emphasis on computer terminals and WiFi access is unmistakeable and quite convenient. I would hate to see the library turned into some sort of loud, collaborative chatterbox though with lots of multimedia noise and talking. As you’ve stated in your post, the library has been (and I’m hoping will remain) a place for quiet, focused contemplation. I wonder though if people will even be capable of quiet, focused contemplation in the future. I guess that is up for debate!

I personally cannot see it though give the ubiquity of Net-enabled devices. As you mentioned in your post, look at how many people today just can’t help themselves by interrupting what they are doing right at the moment to check an email on their Blackberry, take a call over their cell phone, or respond to a text message. I hate it when this happens when I’m having a “real time” conversation with someone. I think that this is extremely rude and shows very poor form but it happens all the time. If you do this to someone in a “real time” conversation you are considered rude and would likely not do so. Why then do people do this with their electronic devices? Strange. I guess that our society has a long way to go in terms of etiquette. Frankly, I’d like to throttle people that do this to me! Ironic no, since I seem to be so concerned about etiquette and civility!

One last point that I would like to note. I fundamentally disagree with you with respect to your comment regarding the usefulness of a university education in light of developments in the electronic world. I’ll extend your argument to education in general. It is easy for people like you and I to make statements like this given that we have already been through 3 or 4 layers of the education system and, I believe, benefitted greatly from it. I’d like to think that, along the way, we have learned a thing or two about how to be civil, responsible, literate, numerate, and mind expanded. Yes, all of the content for this can be found online but where is the guide? Teachers and peers — real people IN YOUR FACE — are extremely important to one’s socialization and development. Indeed, getting a fist in the face a few times for one’s transgressions (and also learning that fighting is not always the most appropriate way to solve one’s problems) is an important part of a young person’s socialization! This type of experience is lacking in an isolated, sterile, individualistic, online existance. Not all of the valuable experiences of a school or library can be replicated online, no more than Facebook or Twitter can substitute for in person communication and networking with all of the nuances of body language, touch, etc… This is not to say the our current education system and libraries, which were developed and geared towards the production of drones for an industrial age that has seemingly passed us by, don’t need to change and adapt but that such systems will need to be in place to guide children and young adults through the sea of information and opportunities (not all of which are necessarily good based on the current norms of our society).

I have noted that this is basically what your library argument is saying — I just can’t take the argument to the extreme that young people can self teach themselves using electronic tools. There will need to be a guide. There is a lot of data and information available via the worlds databases. My experience to date though, is that there isn’t a lot of WISDOM without a guide and without some degree of collective societal consensus around what is of value and what behaviours are acceptable. I think that this is in flux right now and hopefully we’ll be able to maintain some degree of collective consensus on what behaviours are acceptable and civil going forward.

Awesome post Nevin!

I don’t disagree that libraries could be serving a different purpose more in keeping with modern times, but you’ve missed a crucial role that libraries are devoting significant resources to filling. My library provides free access to information – books, cds, dvds and the ‘firehose’ Internet. It provides that access to many people who don’t have computers or kindles at home or in their workplace. It also provides ESL and literacy programs, children’s programming, a Writer in Residence who coaches burgeoning writers . . . and a physical building that a safe place for anyone, regardless of their ability to pay.

I don’t think you can separate the library you describe in your post from the one that is fundamentally operating as a social service. (And I know you’re not arguing against paying taxes, but the Regina Library’s share is only 6% of property taxes . . . peanuts, really!)

It may interest you to see what I’m reading, have read and am interested in reading – here’s my list on Google Books: http://books.google.ca/books?uid=1243527309352029799&as_coll=0