If you look near the top right of the first map of peoples economics (needed if you are to sustain ladership in service or netwoked economies where human relationships matter) designed after over 20 years of Entrepreneurial Revolution feedback to change the world of corporate goverance and intangibles valuation transparently - now =in its 5th year of debate at www.valuetrue.com and launched at the 2nd of Medinges' 12 worldwide retreats , you will see the words leadership valuation

This covers all multitudes of sins of omission and commission that big power can make non-transparent but is also very simple if you ask your questions to oridnary human beings. Here are some sampes

when Meg Wheatley asks any ordinary circle of human beings to shout out to her flip board what charateristics (values) they recall of the person or project they most loved being led through, very natural stuff comes up like:
she is honest, true, fair
listens, encourages big questions not hasty answers, helps people colaborate and connect deepest lifelong experience curves; values any goodwilled person

...
asks us to connect out practical energies systemically by agreeing on a Big Hairy Audacious Goal and contructs rewards for those who try first (even if they fail) for every innovation pathway we will need to connect to map back that big goal -ok there is no ordinary language for this though its in the books of Jim Collins

now if we ask faciliator epicentre of open space's 50000 stages over the last 20 years -eg harrison owen - he will say a big leader needs to know the 3 C's - Conflict, Chaos, Confusion -here you are as leader you are sitting on top of the world's most revered brand whomever she may be, and then the environment changes or some internal organ of the brand goes unhealthy (like your most innovative person leaving to the competition or Nick Leeson taking one too many bet without being co-shadowed by anyone)

If you -and the leadership team - were transparently governing this corporate brand so as to sustain its future valuation exponentials , you would be auditing ahead of time so as to detect emerging conflicts, but suppose you are one of today's typical big leaders drowning in historic accounting numbers that tell you nothing about 90% of future upside or downside that you are sittiong on, ie you don't see the conflict as early as the eladership team needed to resolve it at elast cost

as your histioric auditors and others cycle their unseen wealth measures every quarter ; the conflict wil attract more conflicts as surely as a cacerous cell in a body politic - this is Chaos

and yet poor leader, this all becomes increasingly evident to good folks lower down who leave the sinking ship becasue your top professional advisers and agencies are imaging over them instead of facilitaing true and fair internal channels- so we encounter the last C= Confusion. The most confused group of all in a chaotic organsiational system are the folks at the top. And this loops round to the start in a way that at least 1000 economics cases now show to be true if you had been enjoying 30 years of discussions on leadership at Entrepreneurial Revolution. You see a system revolution can be defined as when something chnages in the enviironment that means one of the perfectly precise rules of leadership historically has turned and is now mathematically the worse rule for leaders to enforce across the system.

Back in 1998 I was working at the world's largest communications agency as the smallest team member valuing the future eladership of one of the largst professional firms the globe had then seen. We tried to find a conversation opener in the 100 interviews of the top leaders of the firm. This is the one I coined so that the partners conducting these face to face leadership interviews could read between the lines. Do you understand the future difference between a professional sector where you can be 100% right and the best your whole organsiation can ever offer to be is 99% right?

The answer was a pretended yes which included tens of millions of image making budgets, and an actual no. 4 years later, the company once valuing its own brand at tens of billions of dollars, was worth less than nothing. Since this company had valued dozens of other leaders of the dotcom age the same way it valued its onw trust-flows, we can be left to wonder what the network economy 1.0 could have been if it had wanted to motivate the greatest relationships people can comune around rather than the least. What by 2004 in Delhi I presented as the coming wars between goodwill and badwill networks - in Delhi the government minsiter for broadcasting and Information technolgy attends such recociliation and risk conferences, unlike most Western countries we map at valuetrue.com and through our peoples' correspondece timelessly open blogs of Club of Village, City, Country and World

Would you think that big leaders might want to listen to the different mathematical audits of 100% right and 99% right? Well some who sustain people do, but many who are rewarded in ways that do not care a jot for what compounds in 4 years time are not likely to listen to what the majority of the world's people would see as transparent common sense and goodwill leadership.

Would you think that journalists would be asking questions about this. Well some do 1

please tell me where else on the net you think the people can continue to debate the day after questions that world class journalists and peoples economits are now asking. posted by ..., 3:16 PM  permalink