Just to clarify my earlier point. I didn’t mean to imply that ALL board members don’t care; I just hope that in the future I’ll be able to hear more from these leaders about their direction and how their efforts are helping to support others. Perhaps my perspective is based on a lack of communication or feeling of connectedness?

A solution perhaps is to look at other options beyond the mailing lists. Set up video seminars, conference calls where all members can tune in, and share ideas via chat with board members, for example.

I think we all recognize the issues and as I summed up my last comment, I hope that we’ll be able to focus on solutions for the future, rather than dwell on the past.

Cheers,
Jeff

You wrote: “I’ve met very few who are elected to a Board of Directors who actually want to create change in a positive direction for its members. It almost feels like they use it simply as a line on a resume.”

A little harsh, but I know where you’re coming from. Happily, I have met some of these folks, so I know they exist. And I also know the self-promotionalists tend to get weeded out in fairly short order.

Alas, there are a number of other reasons why positive change is slow in coming. But that’s a discussion unto itself.

And when dealing with change on a global scale, well, one of the problems is that so few folks think globally. Here at FatDUX, I just spent an hour trying to figure out how to get Slavonians to buy services in Zagreb. And yes, Slavonia is spelled correctly and it is not a country, but a geographic area.

But why travel so far? Just ask a citizen of the U.S. how many states Canada has.

Before you can change the world, it’s best to try and understand the world. At the very least you should learn a little basic geography and culture.

Great feedback, thank you for taking the time to share your experiences.

I agree that the web has created an interesting type of “fame” amongst subject matter experts. As a result many people assume these people will also make excellent leaders for communities of practice.

Regardless of the specific community of practice, within our discipline or outside of our disciplines, I’ve met very few who are elected to a Board of Directors who actually want to create change in a positive direction for its members. It almost feels like they use it simply as a line on a resume.

I feel in many ways if you don’t reside in New York City or California, your ideas and opinions fall on deaf ears. Having mentored several junior IA’s through the IAI, for example, I know I’m not alone in this opinion.

Another example, from my experience, of how your theoretical understanding of a concept somehow translates into an individuals’ ability to be an effective leader, can be found in North America’s educational institutions.

Students selected for teachers college are given priority to those with the highest grades. And yet there’s zero correlation between a students’ grades and their capacity to communicate an idea to move a student from theory to understanding.

In University I can count the number of professors who could communicate an idea clearly, on one hand. Most could care less about teaching, only about obtaining their tenure or getting back to their research. Teaching classes were seen as an inconvenience.

I think we need to take more time to consider what the web is creating – a world where we have access to unlimited knowledge, opinions, and insight.

I believe communities of practice, just like our educational systems, need to at least acknowledge that with unlimited access to knowledge and the ability to connect to others, (the original value behind both organizations) is no longer good enough.

I don’t need to attend University to become a subject matter expert in anything. Relationships mean more than your diploma. I also don’t need to be a member of any community of practice to connect with other subject matter experts.

I would welcome the opportunity to talk in detail with board members in the IAI, IxDA, or other communities of practice about such ideas; but only with those who are serious about making changes on a global scale.

Thanks for yet another great article. May I add a couple of comments, which occasionally reflect on my European perspective.

First, you shouldn’t be surprised that leaders work in a top-down hierarchy. This is a basic part of how virtually all leadership works. But in two very different ways.

A good leader is accepted as such and therefore is granted the right to make decisions on the behalf of others; decision-making represents the essence of leadership. In this situation, the hierarchy is created by mutual consent: the troops trust their lieutenant to get them home safely.

This relates directly to your discussion of building and being part of a team. And it ties in nicely (albeit not surprisingly) to the conclusions of the authors of “The New Psychology of Leadership.” What is surprising is that what seems to be a well-rounded, international team of authors calls this “new.”

Also, listening to junior staffers does not imply “giving up control,” which is generally counterproductive – leadership by consensus has never been terribly effective (it doesn’t even produce better decisions in most cases).

But I digress…

A bad leader insists on exercising authority; “I’m the boss. Do what I tell you to do.” There is no teamwork here; which is probably one of the reasons that the highest mortality rate per rank/per capita during the Vietnam “conflict” was among ill-trained, 18-year-old 2nd lieutenants.

Bad leaders have their authority questioned regularly (or simply get shot in the back); good leaders are more willing to take alternative points of view into their decision-making process and the people under them trust them because of this attribute.

I’ve lived and worked in Denmark for over 30 years. During that time, I’ve met a lot of leaders – and on both sides of the Atlantic. But I must confess I’ve met many more authoritarian leaders in the U.S. – small-minded individuals who flout their title and exert their authority in an arbitrary manner. The comic strip “Dilbert” plays on this constantly.

In Europe, the situation has been dramatically different for at least 25 years. In fact, former SAS Airlines CEO Jan Carlzon wrote a book on leadership back in 1985 entitled “Riv Pyramiderne” which literally translated from the original Swedish means “Tear down the pyramids”. There are hierarchical pyramids, naturally. The book came out in English in 1987 as “Moments of Truth.” Carlzon’s main points were the development of a flat organizational structure, delegation processes, and empowerment of employees.

If we move forward to the current day and look at the communities of practice that have developed to serve the online world – IxD, IA, UX – we see a different kind of leadership problem – many members of the board for professional organizations have been elected because of their thought leadership and not their actual leadership ability.

But differentiating between “thought leadership” and “people leadership” has another aspect: true thought leadership (which implies a measure of thought) means more than just making noise on the lists. Yet many individuals rise to fame because their names are recognized but not because they’ve actually accomplished anything. And to my original point, thinking deep thoughts does not guarantee that someone can run an organization or read a statement of accounts. This was one of the main points of my presentation “A House Divided” in Memphis at the 2009 IA Summit.

So, thanks for getting folks to think more about leadership – what it is, why it is. Our community needs guidance – far too few think about the obligations leadership entails. Noblesse oblige.