Sat, Mar 14, 2009 - Page 9 News List

The day of 'he decider' is over

US President Barack Obama is trying to forge his way in a world where hierarchical approaches no longer work and good leadership requires a fluid sharing of power

By by Joseph Nye

In an environment of mobile phones, computers and Web sites such as MySpace, Facebook and LinkedIn, it is commonplace to say that we live in a networked world. But different networks provide new forms of power and require different styles of leadership. US President Barack Obama understands this; indeed, it helped to secure his victory.

While Obama was hardly the first US politician to use the Internet, he was the most effective in using new technology to raise money from small donors, energize and coordinate volunteers and convey his messages directly to voters. Now he is faced with the question of how to use networks to govern.

Networks come in many shapes and sizes. Some create strong ties, while others produce weak ties. Think of the difference between friendships and acquaintances. Valuable information is more likely to be shared by friends than among acquaintances. But weak ties extend further and provide more novel, innovative and non-redundant information.

Networks based on strong ties produce the power of loyalty, but may become cliques that re-circulate conventional wisdom. They may succumb to “group think.” That is why the diversity in Obama’s Cabinet choices is important. He has been compared to Abraham Lincoln in his willingness to include rivals as well as friends on his team.

Weak ties, such as one finds on the Internet, are more effective than strong ties for providing the necessary information to link diverse groups together in a cooperative manner. In other words, weak networks are part of the glue that holds diverse societies together. They are also the basis of democratic leadership. The greatest democratic politicians have a large capacity for shallow friendships.


As leaders increasingly need to understand the relationship of networks to power, they will have to adapt strategies and create teams that benefit from both strong and weak ties. Information creates power and more people have more information today than at any time in human history. Technology “democratizes” social and political processes and, for better and worse, institutions play less of a mediating role. In fact, the basic concept that is sometimes called “Web 2.0” rests on the idea of user-based content bubbling up from below rather than descending from the top of a traditional information hierarchy.

Institutions like Wikipedia and Linux are examples of social production that involve very different roles for leaders than do their traditional counterparts, Encyclopedia Britannica and Microsoft. Now governments are experimenting with similar means to create and distribute information, but they still have a long way to go.

Governments have traditionally been very hierarchical, but the information revolution is affecting the structure of organizations. Hierarchies are becoming flatter and embedded in fluid networks of contacts. White-collar knowledge workers respond to different incentives and political appeals than do blue-collar industrial workers. Polls show that people today are less deferential to authority in organizations and politics.

In business, too, networks are becoming more important. In some cases, one can orchestrate a complex network simply with carefully specified contracts.

But the friction of normal life usually creates ambiguities that cannot be fully met in advance.

This story has been viewed 2435 times.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

TOP top