Having a sister in high school, I still frequently keep up to date about the ins and outs of college admissions. I’ve come to discover that the traditional “leadership” activities such as club officership are decreasing in importance. Rather, the Harvards of the world are increasingly interested in those who have very creative, out-of-the-box accomplishments such as starting successful eBay enterprises or writing a widely-read book.

Then I thought about the richest people in the world today; in the age of the internet, most new billionaires have made their fortunes creating new web enterprises that prove to be hugely popular. The buzzword of these Silicon Valley giants? Innovation. Not leadership. The same can be said for admissions officers in the above colleges- the successful entrepreneurite trumps the president of three school clubs every single time.

I believe that leadership is the most overvalued trait in America right now. You see that mindlessly thrown in everywhere: from high school “leadership” conferences to “leadership” scholarships for college to executive “leadership” MBA programs. I’m not saying that leadership is worthless. The ability to inspire and motivate others is and always will be a highly valuable trait. However, leadership is not a guarantor of success- politicians are nothing if not leaders, and look what they’ve done to our country. Instead, in the highly chaotic and ever-changing world of today, I believe that the ability to innovate trumps leadership capability any day.

Just look at how corporate structures have changed. We’ll look at two companies who are the flagship firms of different eras: General Motors and Google.

In the 1950’s, GM was the company everyone wanted to be like and work for. GM cars were actually the coolest thing you can buy (you don’t travel the USA in anything but a Chevrolet) and its bureaucratic business model was incredibly successful. Since everyone’s tastes largely followed the latest TV ad jingle, GM’s centralized decision making, many layers of hierarchy, and many subordinates per manager allowed it to produce the few things that were in demand in large quantities. As each manager was responsible for so many people, leadership skills were prized as they kept the bureaucratic machine running smoothly.

Fast forward 50 years and the invention of the Internet, and you see a very different scenario: GM is now just exiting one of the largest bankruptcies ever and its status as corporate icon has long since been taken over by something called Google. This is because customers now have highly different tastes. Your interests and hobbies are no longer necessarily your neighbor’s. Shampoos now come in 15 flavors and 10 different effects on your hair- for each gender. Everyone now wants something different, and wants companies to cater to their specific need. As a result, large bureaucracies and the homogenized products they churn out are no longer practical (as evidenced by GM’s inability to produce new cars appealing to modern consumers). Instead, the ability to put as many products as possible to cater to the smallest segments possible is crucial to a company’s success.

Google does this perfectly. It practically comes up with a new feature every month. Are you a youth looking for fast internet? Download Google Chrome. A soccer mom that needs to find where the heck your kid’s next practice is? Try Google Maps. Looking to advertise? Google Ads. Working on a Spanish project? Google Translate. The list goes on.

What makes this possible is Google’s very flat corporate structure; instead of many layers of hierarchy, Google’s employee system is based on many small product groups that put managers in charge of 3-4 members each instead of hundreds. This maximizes flexibility and the number of products a company can create. A side effect of this corporate structure is that leadership of the mass-rally style is no longer as needed. Instead, the ability to come up with new, creative ideas that match consumer needs is what’s truly indispensable to the modern company’s success. The image of the successful businessman is no longer the manager, but the visionary.

As always, our collective psyche proves slow to adjust to reality. We still think that all the National Leadership Conferences will make our kids stand out, and we buy into the whole “leaders of tomorrow” mantra that so many are fond of. The phrase is actually very true- but not in the way most think. The “leader of tomorrow” is not actually a leader. He/she will be an innovator. Modern immortality is not achieved by giving an inspiring speech or managing hundreds, but by coming up with-innovating- the Next Big Thing.


(Photo: psd)